Is a Black/African American inventor's right to sue in federal court over patent infringement being denied due to systemic racism?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On March 6, 1857, in the Dred Scott decision, the US. Supreme Court decided that African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” and that “all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not U.S. citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court; the Dred Scott decision was made after the Fifth Amendment, which “requires that ‘due process of law’ be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen . . . property”; and the Seventh Amendment, that “preserves the right of a jury for civil cases in federal court”; yet, some would say the Dred Scott decision was effectively nullified in 1865 by the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, which guaranteed full citizenship rights; but, where is it specifically written that a black and/or African American has the right to sue a White in federal court over property? The Northern District of California Court and The Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Qualcomm, 411 F. Supp. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. 2019), has already investigated and discovered Qualcomm does not have the patent rights; a licensing agreement; or authorization to legally collect a 5% running royalty on the price of each smartphone soldxTherefore, is it fair to say Qualcomm’s unauthorized “use” of the patented smartphone invention to collect tens of billions of dollars annually is in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and the person injured is the inventor who owns the patent rights for the smartphone? ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued Does systemic/structural racism in the District and Appellate Courts; does judicial abuse and bias against petitioner, a Black and/or African American; does denying Petitioner his 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury; create monetary liabilities for the company, Qualcomm, who benefits from the District and Appellate Courts’ actions?