Whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals correctly interpreted the scope of patent infringement claims and remedies for a mudflap design patent under 35 U.S.C.

No question identified. : December 8, 2023 Hon. Scott S. Harris Clerk of the Court Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 RE: A Petitioner’s request for extension of time to file “petition for an extraordinary writ of certiorari” Dear Mr. Harris, Iam a Pro Se requesting a 60 days extension, pursuant to Rule 15.3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, to file “petition for extraordinary writ of certiorari” authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) because there are important questions that were determined adversely by the Federal Circuit Court that needs corrections by this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S. Code § 1254 (1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the “petition for rehearing” on September 21, 2023, therefore, the date to file the “petition for extraordinary writ of certiorari” will expire on December 20, 2023. This application is filed 10 days prior to that due date in compliance with Rule 13.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Accordingly, the Pro Se Petitioner request that the date to file a petition be extended to 60 days or Sunday, February 18, 2024 to allow the Pro Se Petitioner to prepare filing of his petition in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules. Petitioner contacted the Respondent about this issue and the Respondent stated that “I am not aware of an obligation on our part to inform you whether or not we would object to your request. ii You can note that we do not consent to your proposed request for extension of time, otherwise, we take no position with respect to it.” (see attached) Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 8, 2023 By: Tarun N. Surti, Pétitioner, Pro Se Defendants President, Mudguard Technologies, LLC 5928 Westheimer Drive Brentwood, TN 37027 Tel: (615) 812-6164 Email: vflaps@gmail.com Encl: Email from Respondent dated 12/08/2023 Denial of rehearing by the Federal Circuit Court Document no. 40 dated 09/21/2023 Opinion by the Federal Circuit Court Document No. 37 dated 08/15/2023 iii Case: 22-2001 Document:37 Page:1_ Filed: 08/15/2023 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. GAnited States Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit FLEET ENGINEERS, INC., Vv. MUDGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant TARUN SURTI, Defendant-Appellant 2022-2001, 2022-2076 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in No. 1:12-cv-01143-PLM, Judge Paul L. Maloney. Decided: August 15, 2023 GEORGE THOMAS WILLIAMS, III, McGarry Bair PC, Grand Rapids, MI, for TARUN SuURTI, Brentwood, TN, pro se. Case: 22-2001 Document: 37. Page:2 Filed: 08/15/2023 2 FLEET ENGINEERS, INC. v. MUDGUARD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Tarun Surti appeals from decisions of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan in which he was awarded damages for infringement of U.S. Patent RE44,755 (the “755 patent”)! by Fleet Engineers, Inc., but was denied other claimed relief. See Fleet Eng’rs, Inc. v. Mudguard Techs., LLC, No. 1:12-cv-01148, 2021 WL 9057803 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2021). In particular, Surti appeals from (1) a decision excluding certain evidence from trial, (2) an order narrowing the issues of infringement to a subset of the asserted claims, (3) grants of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) in favor of Fleet on claims of induced and contributory infringement, (4) portions of the jury verdict on infringement and damages, (5) failure to award attorney fees, and (6) failure to grant a permanent injunction. Fleet cross-appeals, asserting that (1) the district court erred in not additionally granting JMOL in its favor on Surti’s claims of direct infringement and that (2) the jury verdict on direct infringement was not supported by substantial evidence. 1 The ’755 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent 8,146,949 (the “949 patent”), the original patent of interest in this case. The asserte