Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Probir K. Bondyopadhyay, Petitioner v. United States

App-1

APPENDIX-A

Case: 22-2155 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

fHniteb H>tate£ Court of appeal#

for tf)t jfeberal Circuit

PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2022-2155

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas in No. 4:22-cv-02204,

Judge Keith P. Ellison.

ON MOTION AND ON PETITION FOR PANEL

REHEARING

App-2

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK

Circuit Judges.

Case: 22-2155 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2023

BONDYOPADHYAY v. US

2

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay files a petition for

panel rehearing out-of-time which the court construes

as including a motion for leave to file a petition for

rehearing out-of-time.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for leave to file a petition for

rehearing out-of-time is granted. The petition for

panel rehearing is accepted for filing.

(2) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue May 2,

2023.

FOR THE COURT

April 25, 2023

Date

Isl Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Chief Deputy Clerk

App-3

APPENDIX-B

Case: 22-2155 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

QSmteti States Court of appeals

for tljc Jfcbcral Circuit

PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2022-2155

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas in No. 4:22-cv-02204,

Judge Keith P. Ellison.

Decided: February 22, 2023

App-4

PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY, Houston,

TX, pro se.

NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch,

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,

Washington,

DC,

for

defendant-appellee.

Also

represented by SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, BRIAN M.

BOYNTON, GARY LEE HAUSKEN.

Case: 22-2155 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2023

BONDYOPADHYAY v. US

2

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK,

Circuit Judges

PER CURIUM

Dr. Probir K. Bondyopadhyay appeals a decision of

the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas dismissing his complaint for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For

the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

App-5

Dr. Bondyopadhyay owns U.S. Patent No. 6,292,134

This is his third appeal regarding the ‘134 patent.

Relevant

here,

on

November

27,

2019,

Dr.

Bondyopadhyay filed a complaint against the United

States in the Court of Federal Claims, which the court

construed as alleged infringement of the ‘134 patent,

fraudulent o false conduct by the government, and a

patent-based Takings Clause claim. Bondyopadhyay

v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 176,178 (20200

(Bondyopadhyay III), affd. 850 F. App’x 761 (Fed. Cir.

2021) (Bondyopadhyay IV). The United States moved

to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of

res

judicata

and

for

lack

of

subject-matter

jurisdiction. Bondyopadhyay III, 149 Fed. Cl. At 183.

The Court of Federal Claims determined Dr.

Bondyopadhyay’s infringement claims were barred

under res judicata because of a non-infringement

judgement entered against him in 2014.

See

Bondyopadhyay IV, 850 F. App’x at 762-63 (citing

Bondyopadhyay v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 114,

116 (2018) (Bondyopadhyay 10, affd 848F. App’x 301

(Fed. Cir. 2018) (Bondyopadhyay II). Regarding his

takings claim and fraud claim, the Court

App-6

of federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

At 763. We affirmed the Court of Federal Claims'

dismissal of Dr. Bondyopadhyay’s claims. Id. At. 76465.

On July 5, 2022, Dr. Bondyopadhyay files a

complaint in the Southern District of Texas, alleging

Bondyopadhyay III “failed to differentiate between”

Article l’s grant of power to Congress to promote the

progress of science and the useful arts and the Fifth

Amendment's Takings Clause. See S. App'x 16.

Specifically, he alleges he is entitled to “enforcement

of a U.S. Constitutional Order. . . arising out of

unauthorized use of a patented invention” by the Air

Force, which he refers to as a ‘Jeffersonian Claim.” S.

App’x 15. He also argues that when the Air Force

updates the system that system will then infringe his

U.S. patent No. 11,296,408. S. App’x 15. The United

States moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and

Rules 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion

under Rule 12(b)(6). S. App’x 1-3. Dr. Bondyopadhyay

appeals. We have jurisdiction over the claims

regarding the ‘134 patent under 28 U.S.C. Section

1295(a)(1).

App-7

DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s dismissal under

regional circuit law, here the Fifth Circuit. In re TLI

Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed.

Cir. 2016). The Fifth Circuit reviews “motions to

dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) do novo accepting

all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Balle v.

Nueces Cnty., 952 F. 3d 552, 556 (5th Cir. 2017)

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). We

may affirm a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on any

ground supported by the record, including for lack of

standing, Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F. 3d 401, 403 (5th

Cir. 2006). Res judicata may be applied on a Rule

12(b)(6) motion where its application “is apparent

from the complaint and judicially noticed facts and

the plaintiff fails to challenge the defendant’s failure

to plead it as an affirmative defense.” Anderson v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 953 F.3d 311,314 (5th Cir.

2020). Dr. Bondyopadhyay argues his “Jeffersonian

Claim” is not a Takings Clause claim. Appellant’s

informal Opening Br. At 7. He argues that the district

court failed to assess infringement of the ‘134

App-8

patent “against the offending” Air Force Program. Id

at 7-8. Whether this claim is brought under the Fifth

Amendment

or

under

thePatent

Act,

Dr.

Bondyopadhyay has already litigated these claims

several times without success. See Bondyopadhyay I,

850 F. App’x at 762-765 (“But regardless how Dr.

Bondyopadhyay

characterized

his

claims,

as

unauthorized us of the patent or depriving him of a

constitutional right to make a living, his claims boil

down to patent infringement, claims that were

previously adjudicated against him, and he has failed

to allege sufficient additional factsto indicate

otherwise.”). We affirm the district court’s dismissal

based

on

res

judicata.

To the

extent Dr.

Bondyopadhyay alleges he is entitled to relief due to

the Air Force’s future infringement of the ‘408 patent

by implementing any “design corrections” taught by

the ‘408 patent’s “simpler, cheaper[,] and faster”

design, that alleged future injury is “conjectural or

hypothetical.” See Lujan v. Defs, Of Wildlife, 504 US

555, 560 (1992) (internal citations and quotation

marks omitted). We therefore affirm the district

App-9

court’s dismissal of that claim for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED

App-10

Appendix-C

Case 4:22-cv-02204 Document 13

Filed on 08/15/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

PROBIR BONDYOPADHYAY

Plaintiff

§

§

§

§ Civil Action No.

vs.

§ 4:22-cv-02204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant

§

§

ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by

Defendant ECF No.7. The Court held a hearing on the

Motion on August 15, 2022. At that hearing, the Court

took the Motion under advisement. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court now GRANTS Defendant’s

App-11

Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims

WITH PREJUDICE.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that he is the inventor and owner of

Patent 6,292,134, which is a patent for a “Geodesic

Sphere Phased Array Antenna System (GSPAAS).”

ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff states that his case arises

‘under Title 28 Section 1338(a) and because of its

important broad significance, as a Writ of mandamus

as well, for immediate implementation of a U.S.

Constitutional Order (the Jefferson financial Claim)

[.]” Id. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that “Judge Marian

Blank Horn of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in her

OPINION of June 23, 2020 has failed to differentiate

between LIMITED TIME (Article 1 Section 8 Clause

8 of the U.S. Constitution) and PROPERTY (Fifth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)”. Id. at 7.

App-12

Plaintiff

therefore

requests

that

the

Court

“immediately apply the Constitutional Law on the

qualified FACT approved by the U.S. Court

CASE 4:22-cv-02204 Document 13 Filed on

08/15/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

of Federal Claims on June 23, 2020

and direct the

Honorable U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of

Texas to enforce the Constitutional Order and fulfill

the U.S. Constitutional obligation of promoting

Progress of Science.” Id. at 8.

Plaintiff has brought several lawsuits related to this

patent. ECF No. 7 at 1-2. To wit Plaintiff has sued in

this district on several different occasions “for

violating his rights under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8

by making a false claim of ownership against his

invention.” 4:13-cv-01914, ECF No. 43 at 1. At various

points over the last few years, other judges have

App-13

dismissed Plaintiffs claims for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction, inadequate standing, and failure to state

a claim. Id. At 9; 4:20-cv-2536, ECF No. 14; 4:18-cv

- 3822, ECF No.’s 30 and 35.

Plaintiff also filed a related suit in the Court of

Federal Claims, which was dismissed for failure to

state a claim. l:14-cv-00147, ECF No.’s 1, 232, and

233. Now, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs

claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.

ECF No. 7.

II. ANALYSIS

Here, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim for

relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)

(“[0]nly a complaint that states a plausible claim for

relief survives a motion to dismiss.”). Plaintiffs

complaint amounts to a vague request for

declaratory relief without any meaningful facts or

App-14

law in support. For example, Plaintiff writes: “The

laser-sharp issue in this case is the Plaintiffs position

for a U.S District Court Order for enforcement of a

U.S Constitutional order to settle a quantified

Constitutional claim arising out of unauthorized use

of a patented invention[.]” ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff

goes on to say that, “[referring to the time line of the

development and manufacturing activities .... the

laser-sharp

constitutional

issue

involves

‘UNAUTHORIZED PREGNANCY’ for the continuous

time period of 11 years and 23 days and NOT the

‘STATUS OF THE FETUS’ after 12 years and 23

days.” Id. And in Plaintiffs Objections to Defendant’s

Motion,

CASE 4:22-cv-02204 Document 13 Filed on

08/15/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

App-15

he writes: “Response from U.S. Secretary of the Air

Force therefore [has] to be sought before this U.S.

Citizen Inventor considers putting this new U.S.

Patent on sale in the international market.” ECF No

No. 9 at 4.

Courts must “give pro se briefs a liberal

construction.” Brown v. Sudduth, 675 F.3d. 472, 477

(5th Cir. 2012). But a pro se party “still must actually

argue something that is susceptible of liberal

construction.” Toole v. Peak, 361 F. App’x 621 (5th

Cir. 2010) (citing Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524

(5th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs filing do not do so. He

provides the Court with no basis to conclude that he

raises plausible claims. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

App-16

A dismissal for failure to state a claim can be

rendered with prejudice where leave to amend “would

cause undue delay, be the result of bad faith,

represent the repeated failure to cure previous

amendments, create undue prejudice, or be futile.”

Morgan v. Chapman, 969 F.3d 238, 248 (5th Cir. 2020)

(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2)). Here, in light of the

content

of

representation

Plaintiffs

at

the

Complaint,

hearing,

Plaintiffs

and Plaintiffs

repeated and unsuccessful efforts to bring similar

claims elsewhere, the Court concludes that further

amendments would be futile and result in the

needless waste of resources. The Court therefore

DISMISSES Plaintiffs claims WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 15th day of

August, 2022.

App-17

Appendix-C

Case 4:22-cv-02204 Document 13

Filed on 08/15/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

s./ Keith P. Ellison

KEITH P. ELLISON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

App-18

Appendix- D

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case 4:13-cv-01914 Document 43 Filed in TXSD

on 10/23/13 Page lof9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

PROBIR BONDYOPADHYAY

Plaintiff

§

§

v.

§

§

Civil Action

§

No. H-13-1914

§

§

THE UNITED STATES

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al., §

Defendants

ORDER

Case 4:13-cv-01914 Document 43 Filed in TXSD

on 10/23/13 Page 7 of 9

. . . Defendants agree Plaintiff is the original

App-19

Appendix- D

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case 4:13-cv-01914 Document 43 Filed in TXSD

on 10/23/13 Page 7 of 9

inventor, do not dispute Plaintiffs rights to

the patent, and do not threaten future

infringement of the patent.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this

23 day of October, 2013

s/David Hittner

DAVID HITTNER

United States District Judge

App-20

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 232 Filed

02/09/18 Page 1 of 11

ORIGINAL

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 14-147C

(Filed February 9, 2018)

*********************************

PROBIR K. BONDYOPADHYAY, *

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES

Defendant.

* Patent Infringement

* 28 U.S.C. § 1498; Direct

* Infringement; Doctrine of

* Equivalents; Insubstantial

* Differences; Triple Identity

* Test.

*********************************

Probir K. Bondyopadhyay, Ph.D.

Houston, TX, pro se.

App-21

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 232 Filed

02/09/18 Page 1 of 11

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAMS. Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff pro se Dr. Probir K.

Bondyopadhyay,1 the inventor of United States

Patent No. 6,292,134 (“the ‘134 Patent”) for a

“Geodesic Sphere Phased Array Antenna System,”

claims that the United States Air Force (“Air Force”)

infringed Claims 14, 25, and 26 of his patent

1. Dr. Bondyopadhyay received a Ph.D. in electrical

engineering from Polytechnic University of Brooklyn

in 1983, and taught electrical engineering and

computer science at both New York Institute of

Technology anfd Maritime College. Tr. 7, 11.

App-22

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 232 Filed

02/09/18 Page 11 of 11

Conclusion

In sum, because the Ball Advanced Technology

Demonstration antenna was incapable of providing

hemispheric or greater coverage, it did not literally

infringe the ‘134 patent

Accordingly,

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED,

and

Plaintiffs

“Motion

of

the

Infringement Phase” (ECF No. 216) is DENIED. The

Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant. No

costs.

s./ Mary Ellen Coster Williams

MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

Judge

App 23

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT

OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

PROBIR K. BONDYOPADHYAY )

Plaintiff

v.

THE U)NITED STATES,

Defendant

THE

UNITED

STATES’

)

No. 14-147C

)

Judge Mary Ellen

)

Coster Williams

)

)

OBJECTIONS

AND

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-12)

App 24

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 11

On

April

24,

2015,

Plaintiff

Probir

K.

Bondyopadhyay filed his Motion for Discovery (Dkt.

#55) asking Defendant’s responses to twelve

“Discovery Questions.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

“DQ-3 Did the said Boris Tomasic of the United States

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) invent the

Geodesic Dome (Sphere) Phased Array Antenna

System that the U.S. Air Force is developing under

contract with the Ball Aerospace Corporation?”

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

App-25

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 11

The United States responds as follows:

On current information and belief, the United

States contends that Boris Tomasic invented

the Geodesic Dome Phased Array Antenna.

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 11

Signature and Oath of United States Air Force

{Interrogatory Nos. 1-8}

I declare under penalty of perjury that the factual

matter contained in the response to Plaintiffs

Interrogatory Nos. 1-8 deemed served on April 24,

App-26

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 11

2015 through Plaintiffs motion for Discovery {Dkt.

#55}, in Bondyopadhyay v. United States Court of

Federal Claims No. 14-147C, is based upon the

information available to and deemed reliable by the

United States Air Force through its employees and is

true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,

information and belief.

s./Chun-I Chiang

CHUN-I-CHIANG

Patent Attorney

Commercial Law & Litigation Directorate

App-27

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 11

Air Force Legal Operations Agency

1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 1780

Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762

(240) 612-6641

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney

General

JOHN FARGO

Director

App-28

Appendix- E

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

FALSE AFFIDAVIT BY THE DEFENDANT

Case l:14-cv-00147-MCW Document 69

Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 11

s./ Alice Suh Jou

ALICE SUH JOU

Commercial Litigation Branch

Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone: (202) 532-4135

Facsimile: (202) 307-0345

Email: alice.s.iou@usdoi.gov

May 26, 2015

COUNSEL FOR THE

UNITED STATES

App-29

Appendix-F

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case: 18-1674 Document: 32-1 Page: 1

Filed: 09/07/2018

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

fHniteti States: Court of appeal#

for tlje jfeberal Circuit

PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

2018-1674

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in No. l:14-cv-00147-MCW, Judge Mary

Ellen Coster Williams.

App-30

Appendix-F

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case: 18-1674 Document: 32-1 Page: 2

Filed: 09/07/2018

Decided: September 7, 2018

PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY,

Houston, TX, pro se.

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and CHEN,.

Circuit Judges,

PER CURIUM

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ‘134 Patent

Dr. Bondyopadhyay is the owner and named

inventor of the ‘134 patent, titled “geodesic

sphere phased array antenna system.”1

App-31

Appendix- G

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case 4:18-cv-03822 Document 30 Filed on

07/09/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

PROBIR BONDYOPADHYAY

Plaintiff.

§

§ CIVIL ACTION

v.

§ NO. H-18-3822

THE U.S. SECRETARY OF

§

DEFENSE

§

Defendant.

§

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 4:18-cv-03822 Document 30 Filed on

07/09/19 in TXSD Page 6 of 11

Defendant further concedes, in pertinent

part, that Plaintiff “is the original inventor”

App-32

Appendix- G

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case 4:18-cv-03822 Document 30 Filed on

07/09/19 in TXSD Page 6 of 11

who “has rights to the patent” and there are

no allegations that Defendant is “threatening

any future infringement of the patent”

(Document No. 10, p.4).

Case 4:18-cv-03822 Document 30 Filed on

07/09/19 in TXSD Page 11 of 11

Signed at Houston, Texas, this 9th day of July, 2019

s/ Frances H. Stacy

FRANCES H. STACY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

App-33

Appendix- H

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l:19-cv-01831-MBH Document 17

Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 22

3fn tlje ©uiteb States Court of jfeberal Claims

No. 19-1831C

Filed June 23, 2020

********************************

PROBIR K. BONDYOPADHYAY *

Plaintiff, *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Pro Se; Patent

Infringement;

Res Judicata;

Fifth Amendment

Taking; Fraud;

Statute of

Limitations

*

********************************

OPINION

HORN, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT

App-34

Appendix- H

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l;19-cv-01831-MBH Document 17

Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 22

The

constitutional

financial

claim

has

already been recorded with the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Exhibit-6]. It is

$100 per hour for 1500 hours per year for 11

years and 23 days, plus administrative and

office cost of $1000 per month for 60 months.

The total amount of Constitutional Financial

Claim is $1,719,000.

Case l;19-cv-01831-MBH Document 17

Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 22

Plaintiffs complaint in the above-captioned

case, once again, appears to allege a Fifth

App-35

Appendix- H

Under Supreme Court Rule 14.1(i)(vi)

Relevant Excerpts

Case l;19-cv-01831-MBH Document 17

Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 22

Amendment taking claim, stating that the

“Defendant has taken the livelihood of this

Independent Inventor for a prolonged period of

eleven years and 23 days and continues to

remain indifferent towards this Constitutional

Order for a long time.”

s/Marian Blank Horn

MARIAN BLANK HORN

Judge