Claim-preclusion-issue

QUESTION PRESENTED U.S. court of appeals for the Federal Circuit has entered a decision in this case in conflict with the decision of U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit on same claim preclusion matter as in case ACUMED LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The devices accused in this case are “essentially different” from the devices accused in the previous case, but the District Court and US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit merely took Huawei Technology’s fraudulent statement that the “devices in two case are same” without any analysis and comparison to the devices accused in the two cases. ; United States court of appeals for the Federal circuit has ; so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit andthe US District Court of Eastern Texas have systematically prejudiced pro se Plaintiff and only took Huawei Technologies’ perjured declaration and fraudulent statement to set Huawei Technologies free from paying $billions in the United States for its infringing US patents, and further more sanctioned me $600K to pay Huawei attorney’s fee based on Huawei’s perjured declaration. United States court of appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. Rather than : sanctioning Huawei’s conduct of making perjured declaration, fraudulent Statement and hiding information United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and US District Court of Eastern Texas only took Huawei’s perjured declaration, fraudulent statement and ignored the evidence produced by pro se Plaintiff to set Huawei free from being sanctioned for its perjury and hiding the true information, which is in contradict i with this Court’s decision in the case “Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 1387S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017)”. ii