value of the [debtor’s] assets.” Id. However, that Court further observed: None of this implies that debtors in bankruptcy may violate federal law with impunity, selling patented products or, say, going into the cocaine distribution business. Damages for wrongs done during the bankruptcy proceeding are administrative claims, and thus paid in full most of the time. The bankruptcy judge may enjoin ongoing wrongs, or release the automatic stay to allow another court to consider claims that debtors are violating the law. Public agencies may seek redress under § 362(b)(4). But the bankruptcy court is the clearinghouse for private actions .... Id. at 977 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, Inc. v. MAI Sys. Corp., 161 B.R. 771 (E.D.Va.1993) (<HOLDING>). The patent infringement claims asserted in
holding that creation of a postpetition tax levy based on a prepetition assessment was barred by the automatic stay holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law holding that the automatic stay barred a suit for injunctive relief to prevent postpetition antitrust violations holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor  counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay