Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Entry #42: MODIFIED ENTRY: REPLY BRIEF FILED by Appellant Daitona Carter

Case: Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. cafc · 26-1721

filed April 22, 2026

What this document is

Docket entry #42 · filed August 20, 2026

MODIFIED ENTRY: REPLY BRIEF FILED by Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 08/20/2026 by email. [1187755] --[Edited 08/27/2026 by IMH - Reason: compliance review complete] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 08/20/2026 08:30 PM]

Who is involved

DAITONA CARTER
ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA, INC.
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.
META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
META PLATFORMS, INC.
OAKLEY, INC.
SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LTD.

Why we have it

We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:

CoreWeave: its name “CoreWeave” appears in a filing in this case.
…Billion Meta-Core the documented $35.2 Billion Meta-CoreWeave infrastructure deal. Mandatory Disclosure…

A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved September 29, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.

URL: https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.42.0.pdf
Kind: court_filing
Publisher: RECAP
Retrieved: 2026-09-29 06:00:03.978869-04:00
HTTP status: 200
MIME: application/pdf
Bytes: 7571612
SHA-256: b22f2b30365fbe7879a6aa45eb6d8a32292578c09fb65a636792a81f2b0204c8

Document text

45 page(s), 69,759 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.

Full text

Appeal from the United States District Court
for District of Masschusetts
in 1:26cv–1034–ADB
Judge Allison D. Burroughs

REPLY BRIEF OF MOVANT-APPELLANT
DAITONA CARTER
August 20, 2026 DAITONA CARTER
Movant-Appellant Pro Se
2 Massachusetts Ave NE
General Delivery, Main
Post Office
Washington, DC 20002
legal@daitonacarter.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................3
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................ 5
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 7
A. Solos Has Waived All Substantive Merits Defenses by Confining Its
District Court Opposition Exclusively to Procedural and Pleading Shortcuts
................................................................................................................................7
B. The Abuse of Discretion Standard: Deferring to an Erroneous Legal
Standard Must Be Reversed................................................................................8
C. Carter Adequately Alleged a "Significantly Protectable Interest" Under
Section 256.............................................................................................................9
D. Collateral Order Doctrine Preserves Interlocutory Posture Despite Post-
Order Text Commands......................................................................................10
E. Protection From Physical Duress, Intertwined Claims, and Supplemental
Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................10
F. Appellee’s Chronological Narrative Regarding the Mandamus Petition Is
Factually Incorrect and Misrepresents the Record.........................................12
G. Solos’ Explicit Admission of Factual "Artifacts" and Rapid
Transnational Restructuring Dismantle Its Claim of a Pristine District
Record..................................................................................................................13
1. The Judicial Admission of Record Tampering and “Missing” Entry 92
...........................................................................................................................13
2. Concealment of Senior Priority, Sole Conception, and Involuntary
Derivation.........................................................................................................14
3. Transnational Restructuring, Evernote Exploitation, and Exhibit L
Financial Interdependence.............................................................................15
4. Public Capital Markets as a Commercial Clearinghouse for Converted
Assets................................................................................................................18
H. Under Controlling First Circuit Law, Threshold Rule 24 Entry Requires

Acceptance of Pleading Veracity Rather Than Pre-Discovery Mini-Trials on
Substantive Proof................................................................................................20
I. Solos' Concurrent Campaign Forensically Rebuts Their Section II.B
Assertion that Carter's Intervention Would "Unduly Expand" or
Complicate a Purportedly Adverse Infringement Action...............................28
J. The Total Operational Appearance Default of Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta
Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and
EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc., Extinguishes Their Right to Rebut Senior Title
and Invalidates Plaintiff-Appellee’s Standing Arguments.............................31
K. Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC,
Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc.’s
Characterization of Ongoing Commercial Exploitation as Immaterial
Misconstrues the Operative Record and Underscores a Coordinated
Strategy of Sham Litigation and Inter-Tribunal Evasion..............................35
L. Solos’ Reliance on Eli Lilly, Ethicon, and Hedrick Impermissibly Imposes
Post-Discovery Merits Burdens on a Preliminary Intervention Pleading.....38
M. Solos’ Invocation of Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori Conceals an Absolute,
Terminal Due Process Violation Below............................................................40
III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF...........................................41
IV. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................43
V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......................................................................44

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Page(s)
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) 27
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 544 (1965) 41
B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541
21
(1st Cir. 2006)
BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, 125 F.4th 1101
10
(Fed. Cir. 2025)
Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925
41
(1st Cir. 2014)
Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360
16
(Fed. Cir. 2022)
Canon Computer Systems, Inc. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1362
9
(Fed. Cir. 1999)
CardSoft, Inc. v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346
16
(Fed. Cir. 2015)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) 16
Daggett v. Comm'n on Govtl. Ethics and Election Practices,
29
172 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999)
Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971) 10
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352
Passim
(Fed. Cir. 2004)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) 9, 22
Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456
Passim
(Fed. Cir. 1998)
Fortress Iron, L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313
(Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) 34, 35
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231
32
(Fed. Cir. 2018)
Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363
10
(Fed. Cir. 2025)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) 9
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 16

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559 (2014) 9
Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2019) 29

Ofori v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App'x 851 (1st Cir. 2006) Passim
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006) Passim
Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 25
Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu Chu, 699 F.3d 1331
(Fed. Cir. 2012) 25
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,
507 U.S. 380 (1993) 12
Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co.,
324 U.S. 806 (1945) 20, 32
SEC v. LBRY, Inc., 46 F.4th 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2022) 9
T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d 33
(1st Cir. 2020) 29
Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2009) 25, 29
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305 (2025) 16
Statutes & Legislative Provisions
18 U.S.C. § 1595 (Trafficking Victims Protection Act) 12, 34
28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction) 12
28 U.S.C. § 2106 (Plenary Appellate Authority) Passim
35 U.S.C. § 116 (Joint Inventorship Posture) 24
35 U.S.C. § 181 (Invention Secrecy Act) 27
35 U.S.C. § 256 (Correction of Inventorship) Passim
35 U.S.C. § 256(b) Passim
47 U.S.C. § 506 (RAY BAUM’S Act) 12
47 U.S.C. § 623 (Kari's Law) 12
Rules & Regulations
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) 12
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 Passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 Passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 Passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 Passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 41
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) 16
Federal Circuit Rule 31 (Briefing Defaults) 33,38

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter ("Carter") respectfully submits this Reply

Brief to address and refute the core contentions advanced in the Answering Brief

of Plaintiff-Appellee Solos Technology Ltd. ("Solos"). Solos urges this Court to

affirm a series of summary, text-only electronic orders denying Appellant

intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). To sustain

that exclusionary ruling, Solos invokes an extra-statutory pleading standard,

asserting that Appellant failed to plead specific, claim-level contributions. That

argument collapses upon examination of the record, exposing an untenable attempt

to impose summary judgment burdens at the threshold pleading stage while

ignoring the coordinated multi-forum mechanisms through which the patents-in-

suit are commercially exploited.

Crucially, Solos distorts the procedural history of this matter by

mischaracterizing the nature of the proceedings and misrepresenting its own

filings. Specifically, Solos attempts to mislead this Panel regarding the April 8,

2026 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, which was initiated to remedy severe

judicial gatekeeping and secure basic ADA and ECF access.

The responsive submissions of Solos lock the primary parties into a terminal

procedural position. By confining their district court entries and appellate brief

exclusively to regional pleading finality rules and generic dismissals of Carter’s

record as generalized or conclusory, Solos has legally and permanently waived any

substantive right to challenge Carter's senior priority, reduction to practice, or

technological provenance.

In stark contrast, Carter maintains an unbending record of explicit

technological mapping from inception. Carter’s directional audio frameworks

possess Pre-AIA seniority dating to May 2009. Furthermore, Carter reduced these

concepts to multiple fully functioning, full-stack consumer hardware and software

prototypes completed in 2016, 2017, and 2019—predating both the formation of

Plaintiff-Appellee and the commercialization of the disputed technologies and

trademark “ARIA”. These are the architectures misappropriated via joint

corporate-state acquisition and laundered into the $22 Billion Department of

Defense (DoD) procurement pipeline under the aegis of Army Detachment 201.

Furthermore, the five primary corporate defendants—Meta Platforms, Inc.,

Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and

EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. (collectively, the "Defaulting Corporate Defendant-

Appellees")—have defaulted on appeal by failing to enter an appearance or submit

answering briefs, leaving their defense-contract revenue stream dependent on a

vulnerable proxy shell. This collective default binds each entity, parent and

subsidiary alike, jointly and severally, spanning the commercial monetization of

the Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses frameworks and the tactical arrays deployed

under Oakley’s military contracts. Because the underlying technological priority

stands uncontradicted on the merits across this enterprise, an appearance-of-bias

remand is prohibited. This Court must exercise its direct authority under 28 U.S.C.

Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section 256(b) to direct the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) to correct the patent rolls and substitute Carter as the

sole rightful title holder of the issued assets.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Solos Has Waived All Substantive Merits Defenses by Confining Its District
Court Opposition Exclusively to Procedural and Pleading Shortcuts

Under the established waiver doctrine of this Court, an argument or defense not

explicitly raised and substantiated in the lower tribunal is irrevocably forfeited on

appeal.

· The Merits Deficit: Throughout the proceedings below, Solos failed to

submit an independent technical affidavit, a comparative claim chart, or a

verified engineering timeline to rebut Carter's senior priority. Instead, Solos

relied exclusively on procedural maneuvers under Rule 41 and technical

pleading metrics.

· The Binding Consequence: By executing a total waiver on the merits of

creation, conception, and reduction to practice, Solos is legally precluded

from contesting Carter's priority before this panel. Carter’s initial

preservation—detailing the exfiltration of the full-stack consumer "ARIA"

framework—stands as the uncontradicted factual record of authorship,

leaving no genuine issue of material fact remaining regarding true

inventorship.

B. The Abuse of Discretion Standard: Deferring to an Erroneous Legal
Standard Must Be Reversed

· Error of Law: Denial of intervention under Rule 24(a)(2) is reviewed for

abuse of discretion. SEC v. LBRY, Inc., 46 F.4th 1065, 1071 (Fed. Cir.

2022). However, a district court automatically abuses its discretion when it

bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare

Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563 (2014); Canon Computer

Systems, Inc. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

· Pro Se Liberal Construction: As a pro se litigant, Carter’s pleadings are

entitled to liberal construction and must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520 (1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

· Improper Summary Judgment Threshold: The court below committed

reversible error of law by treating a threshold Rule 24 intervention motion as

a summary judgment adjudication on the merits of inventorship. Appellee

improperly relies on post-discovery authorities (BearBox LLC v. Lancium

LLC, 125 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Global Health Solutions LLC v.

Selner, 148 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2025)) to demand limitation-by-limitation

evidentiary corroboration at the pleading stage, short-circuiting required

claim construction proceedings.

C. Carter Adequately Alleged a "Significantly Protectable Interest" Under
Section 256

· Statutory Threshold: Carter moved to intervene under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to

correct inventorship. Standing requires a colorable claim of an ownership or

inventorship stake, not absolute pre-discovery adjudication. Under the

binding standard in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971),

an applicant must demonstrate a significantly protectable interest recognized

by law.

· Sufficient Allegations: Explicit allegations of prior conception and

technology misappropriation satisfy this legal benchmark.

D. Collateral Order Doctrine Preserves Interlocutory Posture Despite Post-
Order Text Commands

Solos contends that because Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 20,

2026, prior to the finalization of post-order summaries, this panel is restricted to

reviewing a narrow snapshot of the initial April 15 text order (Appellee Br. at 6).

This argument misconstrues the jurisdictional effect of an interlocutory

appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene as of right. Under the collateral

order doctrine, a district court order denying intervention of right constitutes an

immediately appealable final determination that divests the lower court of

jurisdiction exclusively regarding party status, while the underlying

infringement docket remains active.

Furthermore, Appellant perfected appellate jurisdiction by filing an

Amended Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2026, preserving structural review over

the expanding matrix of electronic docket closures and text-only commands.

E. Protection From Physical Duress, Intertwined Claims, and Supplemental
Jurisdiction
· Mischaracterization: Solos frames ongoing duress, trafficking, and

whistleblower requests as improper extraneous matters.

· The "Wrong Forum" Ploy: Solos urged the lower court to deny witness

protection and U.S. Marshal referral as the "wrong forum" while offering no

alternative venue, weaponizing procedure to cause gridlock. As raised below

and detailed in docketed filings—including the Mandatory Statutory Stay

TVPA disclosures, and Urgent Emergency Notice of Incapacitation (CAFC

EFC No. 19)—continuous digital lockouts, telephony blocking (Kari's Law,

47 U.S.C. Section 623; RAY BAUM'S Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 506), and

ongoing physical violence and intimidation obstruct appellate access under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Pioneer Investment Services Co. v.

Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).

· Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Section 1367): Solos’s demand to

prune safety and whistleblower claims is meritless. Under Section 1367(a),

federal courts possess broad supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming

part of the same Article III case or controversy. Because these exact

preservation arguments were presented below and derive directly from the

nucleus of operative facts surrounding the IP capture and DoD contracting

pipeline, this Panel possesses full statutory authority to resolve them.

F. Appellee’s Chronological Narrative Regarding the Mandamus Petition Is
Factually Incorrect and Misrepresents the Record

· Distorting the Filing Timeline: Appellee asserts that Appellant rushed to

seek appellate review on April 15, 2026—the exact date of the district

court’s intervention order—thereby bypassing pending post-order motions

(Appellee Br. at 6). This narrative is flatly contradicted by the certified

record.

· The True Origin of the Mandamus: The Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

was executed and initially mailed on April 8, 2026—a full week before the

district court entered its April 15 text order. It was necessitated entirely by

administrative gridlock: the lower court barred informal email submissions

of confidential inventorship evidence while failing to rule on pending sealing

and protective order motions (D. Mass. Docs. 59 and 62), leaving Appellant

procedurally precluded from placing vital technical provenance on the

record.

· Exploiting Judicial Deadlock: Appellee’s inversion of this sequence

constitutes an attempt to obscure lower court procedural roadblocks and

manufacture a spurious jurisdictional defect. Mandamus was properly sought

to compel action on stagnant sealing motions, and Solos cannot rewrite the

record to penalize Appellant for seeking judicial access.

G. Solos’ Explicit Admission of Factual "Artifacts" and Rapid Transnational
Restructuring Dismantle Its Claim of a Pristine District Record

Solos’ attempt to characterize this action as a streamlined private dispute—

bolstered by its assertion of a pristine, undisputed record—is dismantled both by its

own judicial admissions in Footnote 1, its concealment of senior priority, and the

forensic evidence of record contained in Carter’s Exhibit L (Appx161).

1. The Judicial Admission of Record Tampering and “Missing” Entry 92
In Footnote 1 of its brief, Solos makes an explicit judicial admission that

confirms Carter's well-pleaded claims of record spoliation and administrative

censorship while exposing its own procedural deception:

· The Deceptive Appendix Artifice: Solos attempts to manufacture a

procedural default by claiming that Carter "failed to include Solos in

determining the contents of the Appendix" (Appellee Br. at 5, n.1).

This argument attempts to penalize an unrepresented litigant for

independently exercising statutory and procedural rights to compile a

complete record. An appellee's separate supplemental volume cannot

be deployed as a tactical obfuscation to rewrite, censor, or filter the

materials properly placed before this Panel.

· The Confession of Record Tampering: Solos explicitly concedes

that it felt compelled to submit an entirely separate Supplemental

Appendix because Carter’s certified filings on the primary docket are

plagued by severe "character-encoding and formatting artifacts (e.g.,

HTML rendering errors)" that are absent from the official record

entries (Appellee Br. at 5, n.1). This constitutes a direct, public

admission by officers of the court that the electronic federal record

submitted to this tribunal was structurally altered and corrupted.

· The Systemic Deletion of Entry 92: A review of Appellee's

Supplemental Appendix Table of Contents (SAppx2–3) verifies that

Entry 92 has been entirely deleted, erased, wiped, restricted or

removed from their submissions. Entry 92 was the precise system

node where Carter uploaded sixty-five (65) independent technical

files, lab notes, and notices containing Carter's source code, optical

calibrations, and foundational architecture.

2. Concealment of Senior Priority, Sole Conception, and Involuntary
Derivation
Solos manufactured its appendix complaints to construct a pretextual barrier,

utilizing its separate volume specifically to perpetuate the lower court's database

lockout. By concealing Carter's codebase, architecture, proof of reduction to

practice/prototypes, proof of "ARIA" trademark common law ownership, and

notices to Defendants and law enforcement behind blank placeholders to maintain

an artificial "factual void" before this Panel, Solos attempts to insulate its position

from the truth.

Furthermore, Solos is judicially estopped from dismissing Carter's tracking-

network derivation evidence (Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th

1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022)) as an "extraneous controversy": Solos' own complaint

relies on an identical narrative of unauthorized technological absorption from Meta

Reality Labs. Because Carter’s documented sole conception and involuntary data

extraction pipeline via the 2009 Digital Signal Processor (DSP) case study and

notes, the 2013 Facebook export, and U.S. Navy/Kopin postures precede the

patents-in-suit under CardSoft, Inc. v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.

Cir. 2015), Solos' attempt to enforce an asymmetrical tracking standard collapses.

Under Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246

(1944) and Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991), a federal court

maintains inherent, absolute ancillary jurisdiction under Rule 60(d)(3) to

investigate an unconscionable scheme that defiles the integrity of the judicial

machinery itself, completely surviving a voluntary corporate dismissal under Rule

41 (Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 307 (2025)).

3. Transnational Restructuring, Evernote Exploitation, and Exhibit L
Financial Interdependence

While the district court issued summary text orders denying Carter entry and

mirroring these database lockouts, a synchronized corporate restructuring and

asset-laundering sequence unfolded behind the scenes:

· The Evernote and Meetup Acquisition Pipeline: The evidentiary

record establishes the systematic migration of proprietary assets

through serial corporate acquisitions—specifically utilizing platforms

like Evernote to ingest and transfer foundational 2009–2019 acoustic

logic codebases, lab notes, and development logs to foreign servers in

Milan, Italy. This unauthorized monetization and commercial

deployment of Carter's proprietary archives directly fueled the public

market valuations and technical architectures driving the Ray-Ban

Meta smart-glasses and egocentric AI platforms operated by Meta and

the Luxottica Entities.

· Financial Interdependence (Exhibit L): Exhibit L (Appx161)

establishes the structural identity of interest among the parties,

identifying communication conduits utilized for 2019–2020 API

activity reflected in Carter’s business records. Because these

enterprise APIs provide the primary communication framework for

Meta’s business messaging and conversions APIs, Carter’s private

authentication and verification logs were bridged directly into Meta's

data-harvesting networks. Furthermore, institutional financiers such as

Apollo Global Management (which orchestrated major financing

packages for Meta’s AI data centers) maintain a strategic capital

alliance with BNP Paribas, the financial institution backing Bending

Spoons' corporate acquisitions. This corporate-acquisition pipeline

operates under an interlocking advisory matrix where the enterprise's

primary investment banking advisors actively sit on the board of

directors of the successor entities, all operating under the coordinated

direction of the exact same global law firm executing the defense of

this active patent litigation.

· Corporate Shell Games and Equity Cleansing: The record further

reflects a pattern of corporate restructuring—including accelerated

share repurchase mechanisms and structural spinoffs designed to

purge equity stakes and execute absolute exits from consumer

licensing agreements. These maneuvers are engineered to insulate the

chain of title while under active litigation attack, shielding the highly

lucrative tactical arrays currently driven into Oakley's institutional

military and defense contracts behind a web of shifting corporate

proxies.

4. Public Capital Markets as a Commercial Clearinghouse for Converted
Assets
The record establishes that the corporate enterprise has utilized public capital

markets to formalize the commercialization and monetization of Carter's

misappropriated proprietary assets, directly refuting Solos’s assertion that the

appellate record reflects a pristine factual void. By executing serial integrations—

migrating foundational 2009–2019 acoustic logic codebases, developmental logs,

and optical parameters across network nodes from Evernote platforms to foreign

servers in Milan, Italy—and translating those proprietary digital frameworks into

public registrations and corporate equities, the enterprise established an

institutional mechanism to exchange public stock valuation and liquid capital for

uncompensated civilian intellectual property.

· The Financial Bridge: As documented in Exhibit L (Appx161),

institutional financiers—including Apollo Global Management and

BNP Paribas—bridged these proprietary assets directly into Meta's

commercial data-harvesting and AI data center infrastructure. This

financial bridging mechanism operates under an interlocking advisory

matrix wherein primary investment banking underwriters hold direct

seats on the boards of directors of the public vehicle entities, while the

entire transactional framework is orchestrated under the centralized

guidance of the exact same global law firm defending this patent

action. This coordinated capital track directly operationalizes the

technology driving the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban Meta consumer

smart-glasses market and the tactical arrays deployed under Oakley’s

military and defense portfolios, confirming that the disputed patents

are commercially active components of a unified enterprise rather than

isolated private assets.

· The Public Conversion: The transition of these private entities into

publicly traded market vehicles is engineered to permanently sanitize

the chain of title, laundering misappropriated lab notes into public

market valuations while shielding the participants behind an artificial

corporate wall. This public market laundering framework directly

refutes Solos’s core appellate argument that Carter’s claims are too

generalized to stand, proving that the record contains active,

uncontradicted evidence of structural title laundering.

Under Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery

Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945), a federal court must reject attempts by litigants who

seek to utilize the court's equitable machinery—in tandem with public capital

markets—to finalize a non-adversarial asset wash built upon the systemic

suppression and conversion of a civilian creator's proprietary lab notes.

H. Under Controlling First Circuit Law, Threshold Rule 24 Entry Requires
Acceptance of Pleading Veracity Rather Than Pre-Discovery Mini-Trials on
Substantive Proof

Solos' brief seeks to manufacture an extra-statutory barrier by demanding

that an unrepresented civilian produce final trial-stage claim charts merely to clear

the initial intervention gate. This hyper-technical hurdle is deployed precisely to

shield a misappropriated, dual-use technology framework that the corporate

enterprise has aggressively commercialized across both civilian and military

sectors. Because Carter’s foundational architectures are inherently dual-use, the

corporate enterprise refuses to surrender control or return the assets to their rightful

author. Instead, they seek to lock the courtroom door prior to discovery.

· The Abuse of Rule 24(a)(2): Under controlling First Circuit

procedural law (B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440

F.3d 541, 544), a district court evaluating a threshold motion to

intervene as a matter of right is required to accept all well-pleaded

factual allegations as true. Carter's detailed operational timeline easily

satisfied this prima facie gatekeeping threshold. By transforming a

preliminary entry motion into an exhaustive, pre-discovery mini-trial

on dual-use technical proof, the lower court applied an incorrect

evidentiary standard, resulting in a clear abuse of discretion.

· The Post-Trial Misdirection: This Court has made clear that a trial

court commits a reversible error of law by transforming a gateway

right-of-entry motion into a premature summary judgment inquiry

(Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349

(Fed. Cir. 2019)). Meta and the Luxottica Entities are actively

utilizing this artificial threshold to permanently retain Carter's dual-

use frameworks—specifically, the consumer-facing Ray-Ban Meta

smart-glasses architectures and the high-staked tactical arrays driven

into Oakley’s military and defense procurement contracts. Holding a

pro se litigant to a hyper-technical patent attorney standard while

manually cutting off electronic docket access violates Fifth

Amendment Procedural Due Process (Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 94 (2007)).

Solos’ argument that Carter's technical provenance was too "generalized" is

completely hollow when evaluated against its own Complaint for Patent

Infringement (Dist. Ct. ECF No. 1). While Solos successfully advocated for an

unyielding evidentiary threshold to bar an unrepresented, civilian whistleblower, it

initiated this multi-billion-dollar litigation using the exact flexible notice-pleading

standards it now denounces:

· Pleading on Information and Belief: Solos asserts structural

hardware infringement by stating that, upon information and belief,

the accused products incorporate infringing elements. Solos claimed a

right to utilize the discovery process to unearth internal, proprietary

corporate schematics, while simultaneously demanding that Carter

possess those exact hidden schematics prior to entering the suit.

· Admitted Factual Voids: Solos lumps distinct corporate subsidiaries

into a singular operational enterprise while explicitly confessing that

the precise nature, scope, and degree of direction among those entities

are not yet fully known to the Plaintiff.

Under long-standing equitable principles, a corporate litigant cannot harness

the relaxed standard of notice pleading to haul its adversaries into court while

simultaneously manufacturing a heightened, summary-judgment threshold to keep

a third-party claimant out of the courtroom.

Solos asserts that an independent claim for correction of inventorship under

35 U.S.C. Section 256 cannot constitute a "significantly protectable interest"

required under Rule 24(a)(2) unless accompanied by an explicit showing of a pre-

existing contractual, operational, or collaborative history with the named inventors.

This argument represents a fabricated barrier that stands in direct contradiction to

decades of settled patent law.

Under binding Federal Circuit precedent, a joint inventor’s interest is not

remote, speculative, or contingent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 116, a

contribution to the conception of even a single element of a single claim grants that

co-inventor a presumptive, undivided interest in the entirety of the patent asset.

Standing to seek correction under Section 256 requires only a colorable claim to an

ownership or inventorship stake in the disputed technology.

Carter's initial motion explicitly identified Carter's prior conception and

reduction to practice of the identical technical pillars anchoring this lawsuit:

directional sound projection, adaptive beamforming, and multimodal acoustic

control. To demand that a pro se intervenor run a completed claim construction

analysis prior to being allowed to join the suit turns Rule 24 into an impossible

barrier.

Solos’ insistence that Carter's motion was legally defective due to the

absence of a detailed history of personal collaboration with Solos’ corporate

executives is completely foreclosed by established jurisprudence. Carter explicitly

brought to the district court's attention binding authorities that Solos has

methodically omitted or mischaracterized in its Response Brief:

· Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Independent,

omitted co-inventors retain absolute statutory standing to seek

correction of a patent title under 35 U.S.C. Section 256 completely

independent of, and without any pre-existing contractual or

operational relationship to, the corporate assignees or patent holders.

· Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012):

This Court explicitly establishes that an omitted co-inventor holds an

absolute right to seek title protection under Section 256 at any phase

of a patent's lifecycle, and no corporate litigant can strip that right by

advancing their private pleadings.

By ruling that the absence of a pre-existing corporate relationship was fatal

to Carter’s motion, the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, resulting

in a clear abuse of discretion.

Solos’ attempts to secure its manufactured pleading hurdle by heavily citing

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Ethicon, Inc. v.

U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Univ. of Pittsburgh v.

Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This reliance constitutes a profound, bad-

faith misrepresentation of the governing procedural framework. Every single

authority cited by Solos to demand "claim-level contributions" at the threshold

phase arose from a fundamentally distinct, post-discovery or post-trial procedural

posture:

1. Eli Lilly was a post-trial appeal reviewing a final district court

judgment on joint inventorship after a full evidentiary trial on the

merits.

2. Ethicon was a post-discovery summary judgment decision rendered

after the primary parties completed extensive depositions, expert

reports, and comprehensive claim construction.

3. Hedrick was an appeal from a final bench trial on a fully developed

record concerning laboratory notebooks and direct inventor testimony.

Solos’ attempt to transplant the intensive evidentiary burdens necessary to

win a completed trial into the preliminary threshold pleading rules of an initial

right-of-entry motion is doctrinally unsustainable. These cases confirm that claim

construction and contribution assessments are highly intensive factual inquiries

that require a fully developed record. By using post-trial and summary judgment

rulings to deny Carter the right to enter the courtroom and build that record, Solos

has completely inverted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Solos continues to maintain before this Panel that the district court properly

adopted its characterization of Carter’s technical provenance as "generalized" work

product. However, the official court docket reveals an unsustainable legal and

procedural contradiction: the 65 files of technical lab notes, Python source code,

and signal processing benchmarks submitted by Carter were immediately subjected

to high-level administrative suppression under a restricted status placeholder. This

covers the precise architectural nodes driving both the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban

Meta consumer smart glasses and the specialized egocentric AI frameworks

currently deployed across Oakley’s military defense contracts.

This triggers a fatal conflict with the Supreme Court's governing standard

under the Alice Doctrine (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)) and

the Invention Secrecy Act (35 U.S.C. Section 181):

1. Under the Alice standard, "generalized," "vague," or "abstract" ideas cannot

be patented—nor can they legally justify administrative classification or

National Security-related suppression.

2. Material that rises to the level of strict administrative restriction necessarily

contains dual-use technical particularity, specific algorithmic benchmarks,

and discrete trade secret locations.

Solos’ and the Meta-Luxottica Defendants operated a profound legal fiction:

they utilized the administrative suppression mechanism to block Carter's claim-

level evidence from public view, and then spun around to tell the appellate court

that Carter's record contained "nothing concrete". Because these architectures have

a dual-use profile spanning both consumer tech and defense frameworks, the

corporate enterprise refuses to surrender control or return the technology to its

rightful author. If the material is sufficiently specific to be hidden from the public

record under a security lockout, it is per se specific enough to pass the low

statutory threshold required to show a "significantly protectable interest" under

Rule 24.

This manufactured evidentiary lockout collapses under the weight of the

Plaintiff’s own judicial admissions of record. In its Complaint for Patent

Infringement (Dist. Ct. ECF No. 1), Solos explicitly states that its entire multi-

billion-dollar lawsuit concerns the willful infringement of its "smart-glasses

technologies," identifying the foundational pillars of this dispute as "multimodal

sensing, real-time signal processing, directional audio, sensor fusion, and

contextual awareness". Solos further asserts that these identical architectural

concepts—disclosed across all five of the Asserted Patents ('389, '866, '055, '174,

and '339)—were systematically adopted by Meta and EssilorLuxottica to build and

monetize the Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses platforms and Oakley Meta product

lines.

Because the uncontradicted record establishes that Carter conceptualized,

engineered, and executed working prototypes of these exact dual-use signal

processing architectures years before any named corporate defendant or Solos even

existed, Solos’ own pleadings establish the direct "property or transaction"

required for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2). Solos cannot haul Meta and the

Luxottica Entities into court by claiming these five fused frameworks are

structurally concrete, while simultaneously telling this Panel that Carter’s identical

senior technical priority is a "generalized abstract idea". By their own written

words, the technology driving these commercial and military portfolios is a

singular, integrated architecture; because Carter holds true original authorship over

that dual-use architecture, the law commands that the assets be returned to their

rightful civilian owner.

I. Solos' Concurrent Campaign Forensically Rebuts Their Section II.B
Assertion that Carter's Intervention Would "Unduly Expand" or Complicate
a Purportedly Adverse Infringement Action

Solos’ attempts to defend the denial of permissive intervention under Rule

24(b) by heavily citing T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d

33, 42 (1st Cir. 2020) and Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and

Election Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 113 (1st Cir. 1999), arguing that adding Carter’s

claims would "unduly expand" and complicate a standard patent case. This

procedural positioning represents a fundamental distortion of regional circuit

practice and a direct threat to judicial finality.

The Misapplication of Precedent: In T-Mobile and Daggett, the First

Circuit affirmed the threshold denial of permissive intervention because the absent

parties merely sought to inject generic, cumulative political or consumer policy

arguments into narrow local zoning and campaign finance disputes. Adding those

outside public policy arguments would have unnecessarily expanded the litigation

footprint.

The Absolute Standing Boundary: A title and ownership controversy

under 35 U.S.C. Section 256 is structurally different. Standing is not a flexible

case-management factor left to discretionary balancing; it is an absolute, threshold

jurisdictional prerequisite. If Solos' patent portfolio is built upon technology

extracted from Carter's notes, research, development, and/or working prototypes,

Solos lacks the basic legal standing to maintain this multi-billion-dollar lawsuit

against the Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees without Carter’s

participation as a party. Likewise, if Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms

Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica

USA, Inc.'s patent portfolio is built upon technology extracted from Carter's notes,

research, development, and/or working prototypes, neither Solos nor the

Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees possess the basic legal standing to

maintain or dismiss this multi-billion-dollar lawsuit without Carter’s participation

as a party. Section 256 is fundamentally a remedial savings provision designed to

protect real inventors from corporate fraud or omission. True judicial efficiency

requires identifying the real owners of a property interest prior to evaluating

downstream liability.

Solos' narrative ignores the structural reality of corporate occlusion

documented throughout the record. As detailed in Carter's authenticated Forensic

Map of Financial Interdependence (Exhibit L), the primary parties share an

undisputed identity of strategic interest designed to avoid direct title discovery:

· Strategic Financing Conduits: Apollo Global Management and BNP

Paribas maintain a documented $5 billion strategic capital alliance.

· Data Laundering Environment: BNP Paribas served as the lead financier

backing Bending Spoons' acquisitions of Evernote and Meetup, effectively

transferring Carter's proprietary full-stack technical pilot history to a foreign

jurisdiction (Milan, Italy).

· Infrastructure Overlap: Simultaneously, Apollo Global Management

actively led a $35 billion data center package directly for Defendant Meta

Platforms, Inc.

This financial ecosystem creates an incurable conflict of interest. Solos’ lead

counsel simultaneously represents Samsung in patent actions where Samsung’s

commercialized "See-Through" display architecture (Samsung Patent No.

10,886,417 B2) is a copy of Carter's prototype lab notes, while originating

company Kopin Corporation (formerly led by Dr. John C. Fan prior to the 2019

Solos Technology Limited spin-off and sister spin-off company, both led by Dr.

Fan) serves as the discrete manufacturing link for those very and similar screens.

Significantly, Meta—the primary entity executing the operational footprint

below—remains entirely silent, offering no defense of the judgment on the merits.

Solos’ attempts to fill this void by declaring post-May 8 developments

"immaterial" only highlight their inability to defend the underlying merits of the

title laundering. By demonstrating this strategic alignment to facilitate an out-of-

court asset split, Carter introduces these subsequent developments as critical

evidentiary support to illustrate a continuing pattern of conduct. Under the long-

standing baseline affirmed in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d

1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive

Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945), this deep cross-forum

concealment taints the entire enterprise under the Doctrine of Unclean Hands,

permanently precluding Solos, Meta, and the Luxottica Entities from asserting

rigid procedural timelines to trap the true creator.

J. The Total Operational Appearance Default of Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta
Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and
EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc., Extinguishes Their Right to Rebut Senior Title
and Invalidates Plaintiff-Appellee’s Standing Arguments

A fatal vulnerability on this appellate record is the complete operational

appearance default of the five primary corporate defendants—Meta Platforms, Inc.,

Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and

EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. ).

· The Forfeiture of Right: Despite being named as direct Appellees on

both the initial and amended notices of appeal (Appx24 and Appx29),

each entity across this multi-billion dollar enterprise failed to register

for the electronic registry, file certificates of interest, or submit

responsive briefings by their mandatory deadlines. Under Federal

Circuit Rule 31, this wholesale default operationally strips each

individual Defendant-Appellee of any right to be heard during oral

arguments or contest the senior priority of the record. They cannot

utilize corporate shell games to insulate their revenue streams—

including the commercial monetization of the Ray-Ban Meta smart-

glasses frameworks, the Oakley tactical contracts, and the

misappropriated "ARIA" full-stack trademark portfolios—while

hiding safely behind a vulnerable proxy shell.

· The Admission of Standing Deficits: Because these five Defaulting

Corporate Defendant-Appellees have completely defaulted on appeal,

the primary factual allegations regarding their joint exploitation of

Carter's dual-use frameworks stand uncontradicted. Solos' brief cannot

legally fabricate a standing argument on behalf of absent defendants

who have procedurally forfeited their right to entry. By choosing radio

silence in an active Article III appeal, Meta and the Luxottica Entities

have conceded the threshold multi-forum title laundering, creating an

absolute bar to an appearance-of-bias remand. Because the underlying

technological creation is frozen as undisputed, this Court must utilize

its direct authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C.

Section 256(b) to bypass further lower-court delays and order the

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to correct the

patent rolls and substitute Carter as the sole rightful title holder of the

issued assets.

· The Invalidation Alternative under Fortress Iron: Under the strict

panel standard established by this Court in Fortress Iron, L.P. v.

Digger Specialties, Inc., accurate inventorship is a threshold

jurisdictional prerequisite. A patent portfolio that omits the true

creator and cannot be corrected according to law due to an ongoing

Force Majeure event (documented human trafficking and physical

duress under 18 U.S.C. Section 1595) is structurally broken. Because

Carter is present, standing on Carter's uncontradicted scripts, signal

processing benchmarks and the overall full stack smart architecture

invented and reduced to practice by Carter, the law mandates the

restoration of Carter's property via complete title assignment under

Section 256. If the Solos’ and the non-appearing Defaulting Corporate

Defendant-Appellees refuse to submit to Carter's rightful co-

ownership, their multi-billion-dollar defense-supply asset is would

traditionally be rendered void and invalid as a matter of law. However,

in Fortress, the patent failed because the missing inventor was missing

from the legal process entirely. In this case, the true creator is actively

attempting to intervene, giving notice, asking for a hearing, and for a

Correction of Inventorship. Therefore, this Panel does have the legal

authority to issue a direct order correcting inventorship if the record.

The record contains an unassailable 10-plus year paper trail from the

true inventor, while the Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta

Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America,

Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. has produced zero historical

development documents challenging Carter’s seniority. Remanding

this to the same forum simply invites further obstruction and delays

justice for a victim who has been financially devastated ($0 IFP).

· The Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees cannot utilize a

procedural default to keep Carter's technology for free, shielding their

commercial Ray-Ban Meta platforms and Oakley tactical military

display contracts behind a wall of structural silence.

K. Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC,
Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc.’s
Characterization of Ongoing Commercial Exploitation as Immaterial
Misconstrues the Operative Record and Underscores a Coordinated Strategy
of Sham Litigation and Inter-Tribunal Evasion

Solos’s contention that subsequent operational and administrative

developments constitute immaterial grievances providing no legal basis to disturb

the judgment fundamentally misrepresents the certified record (Appellee Br. at 26).

Solos cannot manufacture a pristine factual baseline by securing a truncated, text-

only closure below while contemporaneously reaping the commercial fruits of the

proprietary architecture presented to the trial court. Characterizing these ongoing

commercial rollouts as collateral rings hollow when such deployment is the direct,

intended legal consequence of the district court's erroneous refusal to safeguard the

record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Solos has opened the door

to these inquiries by asserting the finality of proceedings, thereby permitting Carter

to demonstrate that the underlying controversy remains active across multiple

judicial and administrative forums.

· Evidentiary Proof of Continuing Bad-Faith Exploitation: Carter invokes

these ongoing maneuvers not to interject independent, unpleaded causes of

action, but as probative evidentiary support establishing a continuous pattern

of title laundering and economic impairment. The corporate enterprise has

systematically accelerated its commercial integration—deploying the full-

stack egocentric architecture derived directly from Carter’s prototypes to

drive the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses platforms while

channeling proprietary sensor-fusion codebases, designs, models, framework

and other architectures designed and created by Carter into Oakley’s defense

and sovereign military procurement frameworks. Pursuant to established

jurisprudence, this Court may take judicial notice of verifiable public

dockets and inter-agency dockets that forensically substantiate the

continuous economic prejudice and impairment of interest required to satisfy

Rule 24(a)(2).

· Default of Corporate Appellees and Appellate Administration Evasion:

The structural bad faith governing Meta and the Luxottica Entities' litigation

posture extends directly into this tribunal's administrative framework. Under

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, because the five primary

corporate entities carry over as mandatory adverse Defaulting Corporate

Defendant-Appellees , respective counsel were strictly bound to file formal

Entries of Appearance. To date, counsel for the primary Defaulting

Corporate Defendant-Appellees have failed to comply, electing to

disconnect from the automated electronic registry and forcing an

unrepresented citizen to shoulder the procedural burdens of manual service.

Confronted with this systematic evasion, Carter moved to compel

appearance and enforce jurisdictional transparency (CAFC ECF No. 20).

This Court may take judicial notice of its own active dockets regarding

pending motions that remain unadjudicated, while the Defaulting

Corporate Defendant-Appellees exploit this administrative gap to insulate

themselves from substantive ownership scrutiny. Solos and Meta and the

Luxottica cannot maintain before this panel that ongoing operational

integration is collateral while simultaneously prosecuting parallel

administrative challenges.

· Inter-Tribunal Pincer Tactics and Rule 31 Forfeiture: This inter-tribunal

collusion manifests in Solos and Meta and the Luxottica dual-track strategy:

coordinating aggressive administrative resistance before the patent office

while maintaining absolute silence on the substantive technical merits before

this Article III court. Solos and Meta and the Luxottica cannot utilize

administrative proceedings to secure strategic advantages over these

identical dual-use architectures while simultaneously invoking rigid

procedural technicalities before this Panel to bar Carter from the appellate

forum. Because the Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees have

completely defaulted on their mandatory appearance obligations under

Federal Circuit Rule 31, they have forfeited any standing to contest the

priority of the record or rebut Carter's uncontradicted ownership of the

trademark “ARIA”, scripts, designs, concepts, lab notes, algorithms,

modeling, frameworks, transparent display design (lens), trade secrets

(marketing activation, partnership leads, etc), neuromuscular input

architecture/stack, Pre-AIA digital signal processing benchmarks and all

other elements of the smart architecture including. This Court must reject

these procedural pincer tactics, recognize that the multi-forum administrative

maneuvers forensically prove an un-adversarial title wash, vacate the

improper text-only orders below, and direct the appropriate administrative

correction of the patent rolls pursuant to its direct statutory authority under

28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section 256(b).

L. Solos’ Reliance on Eli Lilly, Ethicon, and Hedrick Impermissibly Imposes
Post-Discovery Merits Burdens on a Preliminary Intervention Pleading

Solos anchors the core of its substantive opposition (Appellee Br. at 11–12)

on the proposition that an intervention applicant must demonstrate a contribution

that is "not insignificant in quality" to a specific claim limitation. To manufacture

this prohibitive barrier, Solos leans heavily on Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.,

376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d

1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir.

2009). This reliance is doctrinally untenable and misrepresents the governing

procedural framework.

Every single authority invoked by Solos to exact "claim-level contributions"

at the threshold pleading stage arose from a fundamentally distinct, post-discovery

or post-trial posture:

1. reviewed a final district court judgment on joint inventorship following a

complete, multi-day evidentiary trial on the merits.

2. Ethicon was a post-discovery summary judgment adjudication rendered only

after the parties had exhausted comprehensive depositions, expert discovery,

and formal claim construction proceedings.

3. Hedrick evaluated an appeal from a final bench trial grounded in a fully

developed factual record regarding laboratory notebooks and direct party

testimony.

Solos’ attempt to transplant the rigorous evidentiary burdens required to

prevail at a final merits trial into the preliminary, threshold inquiry of an initial

right-of-entry motion inverts federal pleading rules. These decisions explicitly

underscore that inventorship and contribution assessments are intensely fact-bound

inquiries that presuppose a developed record. By utilizing post-trial and summary

judgment precedents to lock Carter out of the courthouse before discovery can

even commence, Solos attempts to trap the litigant in an impossible Catch-22:

denying access to the record while penalizing the absence of it.

M. Solos’ Invocation of Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori Conceals an Absolute,
Terminal Due Process Violation Below
Solos attempts to excuse the district court's summary denials of Carter's

post-order submissions by citing Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925 (1st

Cir. 2014), Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006), and Ofori

v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App’x 851 (1st Cir. 2006), characterizing Carter's

filings as repetitive "simple disagreements" devoid of "newly discovered evidence"

under Rule 59(e) (Appellee Br. at 20, 24–25). This argument fundamentally

misstates the record.

Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori govern the standard application where a party

attempts to use a motion for reconsideration to rehash failed arguments or

introduce evidence that was freely available prior to judgment. This action, by

contrast, presents a structural administrative lockout: the district court explicitly

GRANTED Carter leave to file Carter's Authorized Reply (Dist. Ct. ECF No.

106), yet simultaneously TERMINATED the entire civil action and issued its

final text orders before Carter's authorized response could be processed, docketed,

or reviewed by the bench.

Under the Supreme Court's clear mandate in Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.

544, 552 (1965), procedural due process guarantees an uncompromised right to be

heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." By executing this

simultaneous "Grant-and-Terminate" sequence, the lower court nullified its own

order granting leave, effectively cutting off Carter's right to be heard behind a

truncated record that is void ab initio.

III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter respectfully requests

that this Court:

1. VACATE the District Court’s unreasoned text orders across Appx12,

Appx15, and Appx19 for a total absence of subject-matter jurisdiction post-

April 21, 2026, and a flagrant violation of Fifth Amendment Procedural Due

Process;

2. GRANT intervention as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24(a)(2); and

3. ISSUE A DIRECT MANDATE to the Director of the United States Patent

and Trademark Office under 28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section

256(b) instructing the agency to correct the patent rolls and substitute

Daitona Carter as the sole rightful title holder of U.S. Patent Nos.

10,306,389; 10,651,866; 11,082,055; 11,871,174; and 12,216,339, ensuring

the complete return of a trafficking victim’s stolen property.

In the alternative, should this Court determine that ancillary factual findings are

required, venue must be stripped from the compromised District of Massachusetts

and REASSIGNED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (SDNY) pursuant to the three-part partiality standard set forth in United

States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977), to purge the systemic institutional

conflicts logging the local clerk nodes; and

4. GRANT such other and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable,

and proper under the circumstances.

Dated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Daitona Carter
DAITONA CARTER
Movant=Appellant, Pro Se
2 Massachusetts Ave NE, General
Delivery, Main Post Office
Washington, DC 20002
legal@daitonacarter.com

IV. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g)

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) because, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Federal Circuit Rule 32(b), this brief contains exactly 6,959
words as calculated by the word count function of the word processing
system used to prepare this brief.
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in
a proportionally spaced typeface, 14-point Times New Roman font, using
OnlyOffice.

V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 20, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Reply Brief of Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter was served upon all counsel of

record for Plaintiff-Appellee Solos Technology Ltd. via the court's CM/ECF

system and for the Defendants (Defendant-Appellees Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta

Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and

EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. via electronic mail.