The wording of the statutory claim asserts the existence of "an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", which means that the claimant is asserting that th

The wording of the statutory claim asserts the existence of "an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed", which means that the claimant is asserting that there is at least one such right that is allegedly being infringed. It's clear that there is at least one exclusive right in existence for this work without regard to the question of alleged infringement, so the only question is whether infringement of the right is truly being alleged. I accept that it's possible to interpret that last question either way in the case of someone asserting a self-infringement while probably knowing that self-infringement can't exist, since the interpretation will depend on whether a bad-faith known-meritless allegation still counts as an allegation for this purpose, and I guess also on whether the person knows the terminology enough to know that what they're claiming is false. In any case, there are many reasons why this is not the kind of perjury claim that any prosecutor would ever bring to court, so we'll probably never get a ruling on it.