Whether the Court erred in denying proper compensation, including 'Cease and Desist order', requested by the patentee

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This is a petition for “Writ of Certiorari” authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) because this Court has jurisdiction over several issues that were determined . adversely by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which jeopardized the poorly funded . individual inventors, lacking legal intelligence, “exclusive rights to their inventions” granted under 35 U.S.C. oo §271 and guaranteed by the U.S. Congress under Article : I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. : ; The questions presented are: : 1. Whether the Court erred in denying proper , ; compensation, including “Cease and Desist order”, requested by the patentee. . 2. Whether the Court erred when it granted a ; , “non-infringement” judgment under “Doctrine of ; equivalent” by relying on non-infringing elements. while neglecting the undisputable intrinsic evidences of infringing elements. ; 3. Whether the Court erred when it punished non-related third party, such as Mudguard Tech. LLC, , ‘because of a public notice published by a patent owner ; to protect his rights required under 35 U.S. Code §287. 4. Whether the Court erred when it wrongly penalized Mudguard Tech. LLC instead of penalizing Fleet for the “Tortious Interference with Business Relations (Michigan Law)” knowing that Great Dane ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued , Trailers was Mudguard’s customer when Fleet inter_ fered with Mudguard business relationship. Therefore, the Court needs to settle these issues to protect the rights of poorly funded small inventors in the USA. ; iii