protected by Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment, in this case a patent, is federally created property under Title 35 of the U.S.Code. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1994). Florida Prepaid asserts that, just as Congress created the patent system, it could ostensibly choose to create any sort of property, using its Article I powers, and then, argues Florida Prepaid, abrogate the states’ immunity to suit for the deprivation of that property. Surely, urges Florida Prepaid, Congress cannot accomplish indirectly through the Fourteenth Amendment precisely what it is forbidden from doing directly through Article I. This argument has, in fact, met with some acceptance among our sister circuits. See Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, 139 F.3d 504, 510-11, 46 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid
holding that congress could not abrogate a states immunity to suit for copyright infringement through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment because it would be a direct endrun around seminoles holding that article i powers may not be employed to avoid the eleventh amendments limit on the federal judicial power congress could easily legislate property interests and then attempt to subject states to suit in federal court for the violation of such interests holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment