Whether the district court erred in dismissing the case based on the magistrate judge's fraudulent statements and Huawei's perjured testimony

QUESTION PRESENTED As pointed out by District Judge J. Owen Forrester in Sklar v. Clough,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49248 (N.D. Ga. July 6, 2007), "a district court may consider a hearsay statement in passing on a motion for summary judgment if the statement could be reduced to admissible evidence at triai or reduced to admissible form" (citation omitted). Plaintiff Xiaohua Huang produced the schematics extracted from the accused chips through reverse engineering to prove the infringement. The Magistrate Judge used his own fraudulent statement that evidence were not brought during the Discovery and took Defendant Huawei’s perjured testimony to dismiss the case. Under Huawei Counsel's instruction Magistrate Judge Payne took the perjured declaration of Huawei and used his own fraudulent statements to make Sanction to Plaintiff Xiaohua Huang. Magistrate Judge Payne accused that Mr. Huang was not willing to hire Counsel and pay money to an attorney (who practiced in the US district of Eastern Texas) to sanction Mr. Huang to pay attorney fees to Defendant Huawei. This case may involve “Fraud on the Court”, the Judgment of Federal Circuit and the Judgment of US district Court at Eastern Texas should be reviewed and reversed.