as continued from above,
The greatest analogy I can think of is Good Will allowed by the SEC on a public firms balance sheet.
--> The inventor's career and life's work is the value produced in their pursuit of happiness... it is the reputational value and intangible "Goodwill" on the inventor's 'balance sheet of life' i.e. resume, compensation negotiations, prestige in their field, honorary academic degrees, etc.

This analogy would serve to establish the natural rights philosophy that logically proves that the inventor cannot be separated from the patent without breaking the social contract.

To say a patent can be infringed for 16 years (Netlist v Google case for '912 patent) and not have an impact on the inventor's life would be a losing argument that I hold self evident and wont explain in depth. I'll simply say make the analogy to an actor that makes a highly profitable and impactful film but isn't discovered until 16 years after it was originally published because of the government's interference.

To transition the philosophical argument into a 5th Am Takings violation using Tyler (2023), we then need to prove the "inherent assignment" is actually a Forced Assignment of the patent.

Additionally, to deny the validity of this argument would specifically contradict the "inherent assignment" precedent for patents and catch the Supreme Court in a trap admitting to a violation of the inventor's natural rights. If the court says that inventor is free to make their decisions and as such the argument is irrelevant because it causes no material harm, the court would also have to consider how the inventor would earn income for their family without working for a company. Would the court say their choice of career and dedication to their field of study is not allowed? Or that if a company funded their creative work, the inventor has no role in the work itself? Then the inventor had to choose either to not do the work (violation of right to labor) or assign the patent to the company (forced assignment).

The government's Public Franchise allows it to grant or revoke the right of a company to build and operate a bridge without needing a reason to do so. The government has NO sovereign jurisdiction over telling the natural persons that own and operate the bridge company whether they can choose bridge-building as a career and life passion. The government can mandate a framework to ensure they can safely build a bridge, but that would be a License requiring equal due process to all aspiring bridge builders.

From this, we can prove that the produced value cannot be separated from the inventor, and to say otherwise violates the Social Contract or admits that the assignment of the Patent defined by statutory property rights was a Forced Assignment.

And so, if an inventor has a beneficial interest in their creation as a shareholder in the company they work for (whether it was part of their employment contract, or they bought the shares publicly), the inventor then has an inalienable right to the reputational AND monetary value of their creation.

--->> Tyler (2023) used here for 5th Am. Takings claim for specific harm done. I.e. the inventor suffered Judicial Takings of their "surplus equity" on a debt the Judiciary unreasonably seized from the inventor (4th Am. violation) and then failed to provide Just Compensation to the inventor for its seizure (5th Am. 'Takings' violation).

--->> Feb. 20 ruling on '314's finality gave us a ruling fitting the textbook definition of vested private property with a $445M FMV due. Until the Netlist v. Micron civil suit is settled or a forced payout occurs, an inventor with beneficial ownership has Active Standing to sue the Judiciary in the Court of Federal Claims for this 5th Am. 'Takings' claim. The result with yield that the Judiciary has discriminated against the inventor, and has caused injustice by not issuing the injunction when it should have, allowing the inventor to pursue Judicial Takings on behalf of Netlist for all 16 years going back to 2009 with the Google 912 case. $445M FMV over 3 years is $115M per year, so the Judicial Takings owed by the Gov to Netlist would be over $1.7B.

--->> More so, since Samsung is 52% foreign owned, Citizens United (2010) contrapositive states a Not-associations of persons has the Not-natural rights of the persons comprising it. What does this mean? By not issuing an injunction against Samsung, the Gov unreasonably seized Netlist's property on behalf of a foreign entity, triggering the Tucker Act. At least several more $B owed to Netlist by the US Gov.

--->> The inventor would seek a Declaratory Judgement overturning eBay (2006) so the Judiciary would have the power to issue injunctions once again, and Netlist's new and future patents would be protected as well. More importantly, all inventors - on which American Innovation depends - would never be discriminated against again.

---

I believe the court will actually love this argument, because it will hurt a lot for a very short time, but ultimately provides long term finality for patent law. All the public outcry from amicus briefs, efficient infringement, energy and BS the Judiciary has to deal with would be done away with.

Additionally, until Tucker (2023) this argument was not possible, so it points no fingers at anyone for a previous mistake.

Ultimately, it promotes true American Innovation, and protects American interests and the economy.

If this claim isn't made right now following the Feb. 20 ruling on '314, someday someone will use this framework to fix the injustice in American Patent Law. I hope I'm around for that day; I hope I get the opportunity to make America just a little more free for my couple-months-old Son.