May a natural person, whose IP is taken by state gov't w/o payment, seek fair redress under the selfexecuting Takings Clause if that state's legislation affirms a justiciable cause of action while disallowing sovereign immunity as a possible litigation defense?

Intellectual Property (IP) is saleable property. Creators earn, retain, and depend on constitutional ownership rights like other assets such as real estate, bonds, cash, inventory, holdings, and similar chattels. The self-executing Takings Clause applies to IP, too. This matter involves a state government and its arms—a public university and commerce dept.— illegally seizing and monetizing a private citizen’s IP for comm’] purposes that’s USPTO + SEC registered by way of inverse condemnation w/o compensation. T authored business plans w/trade secrets that have property protection (Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto) and no expiration. My federal filings earn default copyright safety as “original literary works fixed to tangible media of expression” plus Safe Harbor. The Takings Clause protects all property including IP. Takings rulings confirm its self-activating nature. First English, Knick, and DeVillier are examples. This Court affirmed in First English, Knick and DeVillier that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause was “self-executing” and “[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary” for claims for compensation because they “are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]” Two (2) federal circuits disagree causing legal conflicts. Our nation needs consistent IP protections from gov't overreach to foster discovery, innovation, and science. Two (2) other district courts disagree on IP safeguards and IP creators’ Safe Harbor. The question here is: Q: May a natural person, whose IP is taken by state gov't w/o payment, seek fair redress under the selfexecuting Takings Clause if that state’s legislation affirms a justiciable cause of action while disallowing sovereign immunity as a possible litigation defense?