Martin v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 627
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, claims ownership of two patents allegedly issued by the USPTO and asserts government use of his technology for national security.
- Plaintiff alleges no explicit monetary damages but asserts intellectual property theft and secretive disposal of his work product.
- Plaintiff references two purported patents, Nos. 60/573,757 (2004) and 60/995,253 (2007), which the USPTO shows as provisional applications, not issued patents.
- The court previously notes the USPTO does not issue provisional patents and that provisional status does not confer patent rights.
- The amended complaint asserts infringement-related claims against the United States but the court concludes plaintiff has not alleged ownership of any issued patent, and thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1498.
- The court determines that transfers to a district court are inappropriate because §1498 provides exclusive federal jurisdiction for patent infringement against the United States and transfers are not in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over alleged patent infringement | Plaintiff claims ownership of patents and government infringement. | Plaintiff has not pleaded issued patents; §1498 requires issued patents for jurisdiction. | Lacks jurisdiction over amended complaint. |
| Whether provisional patent applications can support a §1498 action | Purported patents exist and authorize a §1498 claim. | Provisional applications do not confer patent rights and cannot support infringement claims. | No jurisdiction because there are no issued patents. |
| Whether injunctive or other non-monetary relief is available under §1498 | Not explicitly requesting monetary damages; seeks related remedies. | §1498 actions against the government do not permit injunctive relief. | Injunctive relief unavailable; relief is monetary compensation. |
| Whether the amended complaint can be transferred to district court | Transfer would be appropriate if jurisdiction exists elsewhere. | Transfer is not permitted because §1498 vests exclusive jurisdiction and prior district court declined transfer. | Cannot transfer; exclusive jurisdiction prevents transfer. |
| Whether other claims (Fifth Amendment takings, tort, criminal) survive | Alleges takings, theft, and criminal activity by the United States. | Court lacks jurisdiction over such non-patent claims in this context. | Claims sounding in takings, tort, or crime are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331 (1928) (eminent domain basis for §1498 liability)
- Leesona Corp. v. United States, 599 F.2d 958 (Ct.Cl.1979) (§1498 as waiver of immunity and not injunctive relief)
- Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 729 F.2d 765 (Fed.Cir.1984) (§1498 removes infringement threat and provides compensation)
- Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 98 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.1996) (patent infringement suit cannot proceed if no issued patent)
- Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir.2006) (takings and related claims cannot be pursued under Tucker Act in this context)
- Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 583 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2009) (§1498 as compensation framework for government use)