&
`
`I-
`
`No.
`ft*rn-tc o Q Q
`
`**
`
`PROVIDED TO
`SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER
`on 7 / lllffL FOR MAILING.
`C.d
`OFFICER’S INITIALS
`
`BY:
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO - PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
`
`vs.
`
`LUCID ENERGY, INC. - DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
`filed
`CIRCUIT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
`JUL 09 2019
`CASE NO. 18-10551-E
`SUPREEMEFCOURTLN,c;K
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`ra h-t, 1
`imu
`
`SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO
`SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER, SOUTH UNIT
`13910 NW 41st STREET
`DORAL, FLORIDA 33178-3014
`
`b. $
`
`! P
`
`^ \i id
`
`K
`Li ittiisil
`
`JUL 2 3 2019
`
`
`
`I-
`
`No.
`ft*rn-tc o Q Q
`
`**
`
`PROVIDED TO
`SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER
`on 7 / lllffL FOR MAILING.
`C.d
`OFFICER’S INITIALS
`
`BY:
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO - PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
`
`vs.
`
`LUCID ENERGY, INC. - DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
`
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
`THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
`filed
`CIRCUIT, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
`JUL 09 2019
`CASE NO. 18-10551-E
`SUPREEMEFCOURTLN,c;K
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`ra h-t, 1
`imu
`
`SAMUEL RIVERA ROSADO
`SOUTH FLORIDA RECEPTION CENTER, SOUTH UNIT
`13910 NW 41st STREET
`DORAL, FLORIDA 33178-3014
`
`b. $
`
`! P
`
`^ \i id
`
`K
`Li ittiisil
`
`JUL 2 3 2019
`
`
`
`I
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`FIRST QUESTION
`
`Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot allow a
`
`company to steal a person's copyright ownership, design, drawing and blueprints
`
`and secure a patent for the designs and drawings with the same specifications that
`
`belong to the Plaintiff and build the project for monetary gain without paying the
`
`the Plaintiff compensation for the stolen copyright designs and literary works
`
`project according to Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution.
`
`SECOND QUESTION
`
`Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall review the
`
`Plaintiffs copyright registration of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline
`
`design, drawings, blueprints and literary works that were registered with the
`
`copyright office on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003 under Title 17, U.S.C.
`
`§410(a)(c), §411, and §106(3). The Defendant, Lucid Energy Inc., filed for
`
`copyright and patent registration in 2007 and 2016 with the same design, drawings,
`
`blueprints and literary works of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline with the
`
`specifications that belong to the Plaintiff that were filed by the Plaintiff in the
`
`copyright office in 2001 and 2003 by the Plaintiff. There cannot be two different
`
`owners of the same copyrighted project according to Amendment V of the U.S.
`
`Constitution and Title 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(4).
`
`
`
`THIRD QUESTION
`
`Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall or must
`
`make a decision regarding the statutory provisions of Article I, §VIII of the U.S.
`
`Constitution and the statutory provision of the United States Congress. The
`
`Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design is protected by the
`
`Certificate of Registration of Copyright under Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and
`
`§106(3) which were filed on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003. The Defendants
`
`Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design was filed in 2007 and 2016 in direct
`
`conflict with Title 17 U.S.C. §411, §410(a) and §106(3) and Title 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 154(a)(4), “Patent Registration and Copyrights.” The Plaintiffs drawings cannot
`
`be part of the Defendant's, Lucid Energy Inc., patent drawings which are annexed
`
`to the patent and are a part of such patent. The fact is the Plaintiffs original
`
`copyright-protected drawings cannot be part of the Defendant’s, Lucid Energy, Inc.,
`
`patent.
`
`FOURTH QUESTION
`
`Whether in respect of the Court Justices, the U.S. Supreme Court shall hear this
`
`case because there cannot be but one Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design
`
`with the same literary works with two different copyright owners with the
`
`same
`
`drawings, design, blueprints and literary works. Here there are two projects with
`
`different registrations in different years and different protections by different
`
`in
`
`
`
`statutory provisions from the same Article I, §VIII of the U.S. Constitution. The
`
`Laws are clear that the first registration for copyright protection filed with the U.S.
`
`Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission shall constitute
`
`prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the
`
`certificate; the evidentiary weight being accorded to the Certificate of Registration
`
`made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the Court. (See Appendix “4” pgs.
`
`78 to 102).
`
`iv
`
`
`
`S. C. Rule 12.3, Rule 14.1(b), Rule 29.2, and Rule 39.1
`
`LIST OF PARTIES
`
`['O All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.
`
`K] All parties to the proceedings in the court whose judgment is the subject
`
`of Plaintiffs Petition are as follows: All persons served are deemed Defendants for
`
`all purposes in the proceedings in this Court.
`
`All parties to the proceedings in the Court whose judgment is sought to be
`
`reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in the Court after the case is
`
`placed on the docket. Counsel for Defendants shall ensure that Counsel of Record
`
`for all parties receive notice of its intention to file a brief in support within 30 days
`
`after the case is placed on the docket.
`
`The names and addresses of those served are as follows:
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc. through Counsel
`Edelman and Dicker, LLC
`Attention Wilson Edelman
`100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 3800
`Miami, Florida 33131
`
`Samuel Rivera Rosado
`South Florida Reception Center
`South Unit
`13910 N.W. 41st Street
`Doral, Florida 33178-3014
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeal
`Eleventh Circuit
`Office of the Clerk
`56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30303
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`Executed on July if 7 . 2019.
`
`^u
`
`L
`Samuel Rivera Rosado, Petitioner
`
`vi
`
`
`
`11
`,v
`
`Vll
`
`Vll
`
`,V111
`
`IX
`x
`1
`2
`
`A 6
`
`13
`21
`
`,24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`LIST OF PARTIES..............
`TABLE OF CONTENTS.....
`INDEX TO APPENDICES
`INTRODUCTION,
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
`STATUTES AND RULES
`OPINIONS BELOW
`JURISDICTION
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE...............................................................
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`CONCLUSION
`
`INDEX TO APPENDICES
`
`APPENDIX “1” Decision of the United States District Court of Florida.......................
`APPENDIX “2” Copyright Registration of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline
`with the U.S. Copyright Office belonging to the Plaintiff...................
`APPENDIX “3” Lucid Energy's Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline Design
`Stolen form the Plaintiff.......................................................................
`APPENDIX “4” Decision regarding Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline
`Belonging to Plaintiff and not Lucid Energy, Inc............... ................
`APPENDIX “5” Decision of the United States District Court of Appeal for the
`Eleventh Circuit..................................................................................
`APPENDIX “6” Decision on Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals to the
`United States Supreme Court with Affidavit accompanying Motion
`for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis..............................................
`
`Vll
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Plaintiff is the Appellant below and
`
`the Defendant, Lucid Energy, Inc., is the Appellee. The parties will be referred to’
`
`as they appear before this Court. All emphasis has been supplied unless otherwise
`
`indicated.
`
`The symbol “App.” will be used to refer to an Appendix.
`
`The symbol “pg.” or “pgs.” will be used to refer to pages.
`
`Numbers from “1” through “173” will be used to refer to Appendix page
`
`numbers for the Court record.
`
`Vlll
`
`
`
`Case
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
`
`Page
`
`21
`
`Bateman v. Mnemonic, Inc., 79 F. 3d 1523, 1541 (11th Cir. 1996)....
`Constant v. Advances Microdevices, Inc., 848 F. 2d 1560, 1564 N. 4
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).............................................................................
`17
`Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC Interactive Corp., 606 F. 3d 612, 612 (CA 9, 2010).... 3
`Eldred. v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 123 S Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003)
`14
`Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall Street Com. LLC, et al,
`S.U. Supreme Court January 8, 2019 - decided March 4, 2019.............
`2,18
`Fox Film Corp. v. Doyle, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932) 15
`Freeman v. 3M, 697 F. Supp. 134 (3rd Cir. 1988)...................
`16
`Ganz Bros. Toys v. Midwest Importers of Cannon Falls, Inc.,
`834 F. Supp. 896, 899-901 (E. D. Va. 1993)......................
`15
`Grave Tank, et Mfg. Co. v. Kinde Air Products, Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950). ...16
`Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1243 (D.D. Cal. 2017)
`15
`Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Son, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 557, 133 S.Ct. 1350(2012)....19
`Lyons Partnership v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F. 3d 789, 801 (4th Cir. 2001)...16
`Roberts v. Lord, 877 F. 3d 1024, 1025 (11th Cir. 2015)....................................
`21
`Satellite Board of Commons Assn. v. FCC, 275 F. 3d 336, 367 (4th Cir. 2001).... 17
`
`IX
`
`
`
`17
`
`5 5
`
`5,23
`
`5
`
`8,9
`ii, iii, 10, 17, 19
`n, in
`.........
`ii, iii, 3, 17
`
`17
`
`14, 17
`
`8, 18
`
`8, 18
`
`8
`
`
`
`....................14, 17
`
`24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
`
`7
`
`n, m
`
`ii, 4, 7, 11, 13,21
`
`4, 14
`
`4, 7, 14
`
`2,21
`
`iii, 13, 17
`
`4, 13
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Copyright Act of 1876, Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541
`Supreme Court Rule 12.3..................................................
`Supreme Court Rule 14.1..................................................
`Supreme Court Rule 29.....................................................
`Supreme Court Rule 39.1..................................................
`Title 17U.S.C. §102..........................................................
`Title 17U.S.C. §106..........................................................
`Title 17U.S.C. §410.................................................
`Title 17U.S.C. §411..........................................................
`Title 17U.S.C. §501..........................................................
`Title 17 U.S.C.A. §506......................................................
`Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1344....................................................
`Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1365....................................................
`Title 18 U.S.C.A. §1962....................................................
`Title 18 U.S.C.A. §2319....................................................
`Title 28 U.S.C. §1746........................................................
`Title 28 U.S.C. §1915........................................................
`Title 35 U.S.C. §154..........................................................
`United States Constitution Amendment V.........................
`United States Constitution Amendment VII......................
`United States Constitution Amendment XI........................
`United States Constitution Amendment XIV.....................
`United States Constitution Article I, §8.............................
`United States Constitution Article III, §2...........................
`
`
`
`IN THE
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`Plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment
`below.
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`[S] For cases from federal courts:
`
`The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix “5”
`to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`________ or,
`K] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix “1”,
`pages 13 to 18. to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`; or,
`[S] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`[ ] For cases from state courts:
`
`The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at
`Appendix___
`to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`The opinion of the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals appears at
`Appendix___
`to the petition and is
`[ ] reported at
`i, or,
`[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,
`[ ] is unpublished.
`
`1
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`[S] For cases from federal courts:
`
`The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was
`February 19, 2019 a copy of that decision appears at_________________ .
`
`[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.
`
`K] a timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of
`Appeals on the following date: April 24. 2019. and a copy of the order
`denying rehearing appears at Appendix 5. pgs. 109 to 113. and pg. 131.
`
`[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was
`granted to and including____
`(date) on
`(date) in Application No._A
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) and Part
`
`III of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decisions
`
`of the federal court that were entered. The Plaintiff seeks remedies by the United
`
`States Supreme Court from the denial of due process of laws according to the
`
`United States Constitution Amendments 5 and 14(TL “No person shall be deprived
`
`of any public right or property or take for public use, without just compensation or
`
`deprived from copyright protection without due process of law. Under similarly
`
`situated person are equal under the law and must be treated alike” In the Florida
`
`Law Weekly, Federal Vol 27, Number 47, pages 686-690. Fourth Estate Public
`
`Benefit Corporation v. Wall Street Com. LLC. et al. S.U. Supreme Court January 8,
`
`2019 — decided March 4, 2019, the Court granted Fourth Estate's Petition for
`
`2
`
`
`
`Certiorari to resolve a division among U.S. Courts of Appeal on which registration
`
`occurs in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. §411(a), 585 U.S. 120.18). Compare
`
`e.g., 858 f. 3d at 1341 (case below) (registration has been made under 17 U.S.C.
`
`§411(a), when the registrar of copyrights registers a copyright, with, e.g. Cosmetic
`
`Ideas, Inc. v. IAC Interactive Corp., 606 F. 3d 612, 612 (CA 9, 2010) (Registration
`
`has been made §411 (a) when the copyright claimant's complete application for
`
`registration is received by the copyright office).
`
`Held; The United States Supreme Court delivered the opinion of the Court,
`
`copyright infringement - registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may
`
`commence an infringement suit when the copyright office registers a copyright -
`
`upon registration of a copyright, a copyright owner can recover for infringement
`
`that occurred both before and after registration. [See Appendix “2”, pages 27 to 30
`
`and pages 51 to 57]. The Plaintiff Samuel Rivera Rosado's copyright registration
`
`was received by the copyright office on May 21, 2001 and March 10, 2003.
`
`“. . . The Federal Courts will not allow a company to steal a person's property
`
`such as copyright ownership design, drawings and blueprints and put patent on such
`
`property for monetary gain in violation of The United States Constitution Amendment
`
`Y. No person shall deprive any person's property to be taken for public use without
`
`just compensation!”
`
`3
`
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`“The United States Constitution. Amendment V.” Holding no persons shall
`
`be deprived of life, liberty,property without due process of law, nor shall private
`
`property be taken for public use without just compensation. Amendment XI. The
`
`judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
`
`law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
`
`citizens of another state. Amendment VII. Suits at Common Law. The Plaintiff
`
`Copyright Infringement Complaint Lawsuit shall be otherwise re-examined in any
`
`court of the United States. Then according to the rules of the common law. And
`
`The United States Constitution. Article III. Section 2. The judicial power shall
`
`extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the law of the
`
`United States.
`
`Provisions of The United States Constitution allow for the courts to grant a
`
`Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis when the Plaintiff is
`
`indigent and he cannot prepay the court cost to proceed in court action to recover
`
`his stolen property from Defendant Lucid Energy, Inc.
`
`The facts in this case show that the Plaintiff is the victim because it is
`
`obvious that Lucid Energy, Inc. stole the Plaintiffs property, the Water Turbine
`
`Energy System Pipeline and the literary work from the book for monetary gain
`
`without paying any compensation. The point of law is that the Plaintiffs copyright
`
`4
`
`
`
`shows the Plaintiff is the owner of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline and
`
`not Lucid Energy, Inc.
`
`Infringement on and stolen property occurred against the Plaintiff when
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc. in 2012, delivered the same project for patent registration of
`
`the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline, which the Plaintiff designed in 2001
`
`and in fact registered with the patent office which delivers clean, safe drinking
`
`water and generates clean electricity by using the city water utility main pipe. The
`
`same project that in 2004 disappeared from the office of the executive secretary of
`
`the U.S. Department of Energy in Washington D.C. and the California Energy
`
`Commission in 2007. [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 50 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61
`
`to 77]. “Now the court stated the Plaintiffs complaint is frivolous because Lucid
`
`Energy Inc. has a patent and the Plaintiff has a copyright when Lucid Energy Inc.
`
`put patent in stolen property how can the court state the Plaintiffs complaint failed
`
`to state a claim of copyright infringement when the Plaintiffs is the victim in this
`
`case? That it is legal to steal a person's copyright design, drawings and literary
`
`work and register a patent for them and the court protects the person that has the
`
`patent.”
`
`5
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of due process of laws from the United
`
`States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on November 22, 2017. The
`
`Honorable Donald L. Graham referred to the Plaintiffs lawsuit seeking $250
`
`million dollars prepayment from Lucid Energy Inc. for the stolen Water Turbine
`
`Energy System Pipeline for monetary gain for which Lucid Energy Inc. is not
`
`immune from paying compensation to the Plaintiff for violation of copyright
`
`infringement in which the project actually and legally belongs to the Plaintiff and
`
`not to Lucid Energy.
`
`The Court Judge overlooked the appendices and the Plaintiffs motion to
`
`proceed in forma pauperis showing the Plaintiffs claims are not frivolous or
`
`malicious because the Plaintiff is the victim in this case. Lucid Energy stole the
`
`Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline design from the Plaintiff and built the
`
`project for monetary gain. Now Lucid Energy, Inc. has not paid Plaintiff over
`
`Plaintiffs protest. Thus since the Plaintiff does not have any money to pay the
`
`court cost, the judge dismissed the Plaintiffs complaint because the Plaintiff is
`
`currently a prisoner in the South Florida Reception Center. [See Appendix “1” pgs.
`
`13 to 26 and Appendix “5” pgs 104 to 108].
`
`The Magistrate Judge never looked into this issue! Also, the Magistrate
`
`Judge's recommendation that was made without the court first receiving the U.S.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Copyright Office reply to prove the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline belongs
`
`to the Plaintiff not Lucid Energy Inc., that would have been the right action by the
`
`court in this claim regarding a copyright infringement that was committed by
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc. for stealing the Plaintiffs property. The court's denial and
`
`dismissal without properly reviewing the U.S. Copyright Office's reply is a denial
`
`of due process under Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution. [See Appendix “1”
`
`pgs. 3 to 12].
`
`Plaintiff filed direct appeal to the United States District Court, Southern
`
`District of Florida and to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh
`
`Circuit looking for justice. However, justice and due process of laws failed and the
`
`legal process was defective and broke down when the court held that the Plaintiff
`
`sought monetary relief from a Defendant, Lucid Energy, Inc., who is immune from
`
`such relief, 28 U.S.C. §1915(e¥2L
`
`The court erred when it misapplied the controlling laws holding that Lucid
`
`Energy, Inc. has the protection of immunity from prosecution under The United
`
`States Constitution. Amendment XI. Here, will take notice that the only
`
`departments that have this immunity protection in this case are the California
`
`Energy Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy and Washington D.C., not
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc.
`
`The United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit stated the scope
`
`7
`
`
`
`of copyright protection for designs and literary work is limited, however, in that it
`
`does not “extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
`
`concept, principle, or discovery regardless of the form in which it is described,
`
`explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”
`
`“If the designs, technical
`
`drawings, and blueprints that are not stolen property, there is no problem,” but
`
`since the project is stolen property, there is a crime because the copyright
`
`registration by the United States Copyright Office is under the seal of the
`
`Copyright Office and is protected in accordance with Title 17, United States Code.
`
`In 17 U.S.C. §102flf). §106 A(a.y3L unlike a patent, which protects
`
`duplication of an invention if the invention is not stolen property, if the copyright
`
`designs, technical drawings, blueprints and literary works are stolen from the
`
`Plaintiff, the patent is invalid and Lucid Energy, Inc. committed a crime for
`
`tampering with illegally obtained designs, technical drawings and literary works of
`
`the Plaintiffs Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was stolen property from
`
`the Plaintiff. This is a crime, an offense in violation of Title 18U.S.C.A. §1365(4L
`
`§ 1962(a)(b) or (c) and §1344(T)(2) (2018L [See Appendix “5” pgs. 114 to 129].
`
`The Plaintiffs complaint, the allegations of which must be taken as true,
`
`establishes these elements. Plaintiff files this action against Lucid Energy, Inc.,
`
`Defendant in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, for
`
`copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. resulting from the illegal use and
`
`8
`
`
`
`distribution of Plaintiffs literary work of the copyright-protected Water Turbine
`
`Energy System Pipeline, registered with the United States Copyright Office,
`
`. Registration Numbers VAU-529-047 and TXU1-097-049.
`
`Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant's infringement was willful and
`
`substantial is also taken as true. Plaintiff has valid and enforceable rights in his
`
`original copyrighted work registered with the United States Copyright Office,
`
`Registration Numbers VAU-529-047 and TXU1-097-049.
`
`Defendant has directly, indirectly and/or contributorily infringed on
`
`Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the Copyright Act by copying and distributing
`
`material showing technical drawings and blueprints of Plaintiffs invention,
`
`contributing to the infringement of Plaintiffs exclusive right under the Copyright
`
`Act causing Plaintiff economic harm. This infringement has been willful.
`
`In the form of conclusory allegations and legal conclusions, the evidence
`
`presented must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs record and
`
`appendices between the the conflict in the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's.
`
`The Plaintiffs claims as deemed fully admitted are not frivolous. Plaintiffs
`
`motivation is to enforce its rights as it is action in the industry. Copyright
`
`protection inures “original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
`
`expression,” including designs, 17 U.S.C. 102(^X1X81 and 102(aX5T Generally,
`
`the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to distribute or display the
`
`9
`
`
`
`copyrighted work to the public the designs of the Water Turbine Energy System
`
`Pipeline projects 17 U.S.C. 106(AYaX2Y3) and lOOC?). The initial ownership of a
`
`copyrighted work vests in the author of the work.
`
`The law establishes copyright infringement. Two elements must be shown:
`
`“(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the
`
`work that are original.” [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 30 and pg. 51]. (“Once the
`
`Plaintiff produces a Certificate of Copyright, the burden shifts to the Defendant to
`
`demonstrate why the claim of copyright of technical drawings and blueprints is
`
`invalid of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was built by Lucid
`
`Energy, Inc.
`
`The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit overlooked and
`
`misapprehended the complaint and Appendices Records.
`
`On June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff sent a package to the Secretary of the U.S.
`
`Department of Energy in Washington, D.C. that contained 151 pages and 44
`
`technical drawings that deal with new technology to produce clean electricity by
`
`using only water. That package was sent via Certified Mail and was received on
`
`June 17, 2004. The Office of the Executive Secretary extensively searched their
`
`files and could not find the 151 pages and 44 technical drawings with blueprints
`
`that were received by the U.S. Department of Energy because the package
`
`was
`
`stolen by someone. [See Appendix “4” pgs. 81 to 86].
`
`10
`
`
`
`On May 24, 2007, the Plaintiff sent a copy of the same portfolio via
`
`Certified Mail to the Department of Energy in Washington D.C. and to the
`
`California Energy Commission with 151 pages and 44 technical drawings along
`
`with blueprints of six different clean and renewable energy sources. The package
`
`was received by the California Energy Commission on May 24, 2007. On October
`
`3, 2007, the Plaintiff requested that the Director of the California Energy
`
`Commission advise the Plaintiff regarding the status of the portfolio for the Water
`
`Turbine Energy System Pipeline but never received a reply. [See Appendix “4”
`
`pgs. 92 to 97]. Now the fact is that there is evidence that supports the Plaintiffs
`
`copyright of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was stolen from the
`
`Plaintiff and built by other person in violation of Amendment V of the U.S.
`
`Constitution.
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc.'s copyright and patent that were filed in 2007 and 2015
`
`contain the same literary work as the Plaintiffs book with the same specifications,
`
`drawings and designs as the Plaintiffs, Samuel Rivera Rosado, architectural work
`
`and designs that are contained in the Plaintiffs copyright. Now, Lucid Energy,
`
`Inc.'s project contains the same literary language, facts, theory, topics and detail
`
`that are found in the Plaintiffs manual book, “The New Super-Power Square
`
`Pipeline that Produces Electricity from Fresh or Seawater” that was registered by
`
`the Plaintiff in 2001 and 2003 with the U.S. Copyright Office [See Appendix “2”
`
`11
`
`
`
`pgs. 27-60 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61-77]. The Court cannot allow Lucid Energy,
`
`Inc. to operate with stolen property relating to racketeering.
`
`12
`
`
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`
`The court cannot allow the company to steal or take a person's copyright
`
`design, drawings or literary work and then patent and copyright the original
`
`owner's property because The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
`
`holds that no person shall be deprived of private property to be taken for public
`
`use
`
`without just compensation.
`
`Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution holding that: to
`
`promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited to authors
`
`and inventors the exclusive right of copyright to their respective writing and
`
`discoveries. This approach is consistent with the Copyright Act. A patent owner, a
`
`copyright holder possesses the right to exclude others from using his property.
`
`“Copyright and patent is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits.”
`
`(Internal quotation mark omitted). The Patent Act, the Copyright Act, provide that
`
`courts “may” grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable to
`
`prevent or restrain infringement of copyright.
`
`The Plaintiffs complaint against Lucid Energy, Inc. for stolen property,
`
`designs and drawings, should be otherwise re-examined by the United States
`
`Supreme Court on the merits according to Article III. §2 of the United States
`
`Constitution. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in laws and equity
`
`arising under this constitution. The laws of the United States, the Plaintiffs civil
`
`13
`
`
`
`complaint in violation of Copyright Act by Lucid Energy, Inc., that shall be re
`
`examined by the United States Supreme Court under Amendments VII and XI of
`
`the United States Constitution. The Judicial power of the United States shall not
`
`be construed to extend to any suit.
`
`The United States Supreme Court shall, and must, protect any person, like
`
`the Plaintiffs property from being stolen or taken or infringed upon from a
`
`company like Lucid Energy, Inc. The Plaintiffs stolen copyright design, technical
`
`drawings and blueprints of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline that was
`
`built by Lucid Energy, Inc. for commercial advantage and private monetary gain
`
`makes millions of dollars for Lucid Energy, Inc. for years to come in violation of
`
`Title 17 U.S.C.A. $506ta¥U(A) and Title 18 U.S.C.A., §2319. [See Appendix “5”
`
`pgs. 123 to 125].
`
`Here, the District Court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit
`
`affirmed the dismissal holding that Plaintiff Samuel Rivera Rosado would not be
`
`entitled to relief even after accepting as true that Mr. Samuel Rivera Rosado has a
`
`valid copyright and his technical drawings had been used to create a water turbine
`
`energy system pipeline without his permission. Id. To properly seek relief for
`
`Lucid Energy, Inc's. Alleged reliance on his copyright infringement because Lucid
`
`Energy, Inc. filed for patent and the Plaintiff has a copyright. The court overlooked
`
`and misapprehended laws and the constitution. In Eldred. v. Ashcroft. 537 U.S.
`
`14
`
`
`
`186, 123 S Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003), the United States Supreme Court
`
`dissent by Stevens Breyer. 4. “The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes
`
`reward to the owner a secondary consideration.” In Fox Film Corn, v. Dovle. 286
`
`U.S. 123, 127, 52 S.Ct. 546, 76 L.Ed. 1010 (1932); see also id. at 127, 128 52 S.Ct.
`
`546. (Copyright at Patent is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits
`
`bestowed by the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects.”
`
`(Internal quotation marks omitted). The Patent Act, the Copy-right Act, provides
`
`that courts “may” grant injunctive relief on such terms as it may deem reasonable
`
`to prevent or restrain infringement of copyright.
`
`The Plaintiff has “exclusive rights” ownership under the copyright
`
`registration by the copyright office of the Water Turbine Energy System Pipeline
`
`that produces clean electricity by using the city water utility main pipe, the same
`
`system that was built by Lucid Energy, Inc. without the Plaintiffs permission or
`
`any agreement in violation of copyright infringement. There cannot be two water
`
`turbine energy system pipelines by two different owners or two different systems
`
`that do the same work. In Kasebere v. Conaco. LLC.. 260 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1243
`
`(D.D. Cal. 2017), the District Court held: “To determine whether two works are
`
`substantially similar in copyright infringement action, a two-part analysis and
`
`extrinsic test is applied for summary judgment, only the extrinsic test is
`
`important.” (Internal quotation marks are omitted). Ganz Bros. Toys v. Midwest
`
`15
`
`
`
`Importers of Cannon Falls. Inc.. 834 F. Supp. 896, 899-901 (E. D. Va. 1993). The
`
`two works are extrinsically and intrinsically similar. Lyons Partnership v. Morris
`
`Costumes, Inc., 243 F. 3d 789, 801 (4th Cir. 2001). The two Water Turbine Energy
`
`System Pipelines in the Plaintiffs and Lucid Energy, Inc.'s copyright are the same
`
`as stated in the Plaintiffs book “The New Super Power Square Pipeline That
`
`Produces Electricity by Using Fresh Water or Seawater. ” The Plaintiffs design
`
`and technical drawings consist of “unique original expression based on similarities
`
`of design, theory and invention ideas on which it is founded.”
`
`In both the Plaintiffs and Lucid Energy, Inc.'s Water Turbine Energy System
`
`Pipeline [See Appendix “2” pgs. 27 to 60 and Appendix “3” pgs. 61 to 771. these
`
`two devices do the exact same work with substantially the same result. They are
`
`the same even though they differ in name, form or shape.” The doctrine of
`
`operates not only in favor of the patentee, see in Freeman v. 3M. 697 F. Supp. 134
`
`(3rd Cir. 1988). The court held that: to prove this infringement claim, he would
`
`have to prove that they performed substantially the same function in substantially
`
`the same way to achieve the same result. Grave Tank, et Mfz. Co. v. Kinde Air
`
`Products. Co.. 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950).
`
`The P
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
