Whether the Federal Circuit erred in affirming summary judgment of non-infringement based on estoppel and constitutional standing in patent infringement case involving HeRO Graft product

l.whether Federal circuit erred in affirming sum mary Judgement of non-infringement of Utah Court Judgement No2023-2329 based on estoppel in con travention of B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis, In dus ,inc 575U.S .138(2015 and 35 U.S.C§ 315(e)(2). Also whether Federal Circuit erred in affirming the Judgement of Georgia Court in case No 2023-2347 af firming dismissal of amended Complaint and Five in fringement Claims ofpatentUS8,747,344 (344) based on Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion ) in contra vention of Final and written decision of Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision(Board) granting patent344 , also in contravention of Supreme precedent B&B Hard Ware inc V. Hargis Indus inc 575 U.S 138(2015) and statue 315(e)(2) 2.Whether Respondents Meri t Medical inc of Utah Court matter and Artivion inc of Georgia matter i Court Lack Constitutional standing to defend law suit given that accused product HeRO Graft is Un patented and Respondents have failed to demon strate any Constitutionally protected injury in vio lation of Lujan v. Defenders of Wild life 504 U.S.555, 560(1992) 3 Whether plaintiff suffered Constitutional injury due to respondents un authorized use of USpatent344 entitling plaintiff to redress under Fifth amendment taking clause 4 Plaintiff a patent holder suffered constitution 111 injury in fact from the date of filing patent in fringement case in both Georgia and Utah District courts. Plaintiff had an exclusive right to sue Re spondents for making and selling the accused, copied HeRo.Graft, Respondents did not demonstrate a ii concrete injury to their unpatented Product HeRO Graft and therefore can not defend their case. Was it not unfair Federal Circuit did not dismiss re spondents pleading this Court to resolve plaintiffs constitution 111 injury 5 Plaintiff was granted patent as a new and use ful art under constitution Artl clause 8, section 8 with exclusive right to exclude others from making and selling the patented invention in the United States or importing the invention into United States. Patents are intellectual property rights of patent holder, under Patent act Both respondent's Product is an unpatented HeRO Graft, utilizing an important item ve nous out Flow catheter of plaintiffs patent 344 in making unpatented product HeRO iii Graft, violating the intellectual constitutional rights of the patent holder. Was it not unfair that District court judges in Utah, Georgia and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals did not grant the intellectual constitutional claim of the plaintiff .this Court to resolve 6 .Plaintiff, a patent holder has exclusionary con stitutional and statutory standing to exclude oth ers from making patented invention in USA and abroad, respondents Product-HeRo Graft is a cop ied unpatented, device having no exclusive Con stitutional standing to defend case, their claims should have been dismissed that did not happen this court to resolve 7. Whether this court should institute disciplinary action against both respondents and their respec tive attorneys for theft of plaintiffs iv constitutionally protected intellectual property. Both used Plaintiffs Venous out Flow catheter of patent344 in the manufacture of accused product HeRo graft This will be act of justice under law to institute disciplinary action, under Rule 8 of the Courtt 8 There is split between 5th circuit Court of Ap peals and Federal Circuit Court of appeal on Con stitution lllinjury ,this court to resolve split un der Rule 10(a) there is also Split between Federal Circuit Court of appeals and supreme Court deci sion in B&B Hardware on the Federal question of Estoppel this Court to resolve the estoppel issue under Court Rule 10(c) 9 Whether the Court should issue a permanent in junction,preventing Merit Medical from further manufacturing copied unpatented HeRO Graft in view of supreme court ruling in eBay inc v. Merc Exchange L.L.C ’547 U.S. 388(2006) Merit and Artivion has acted in violation of patent act, plain tiff has suffer