Pappalardo v. Stevins
2:17-cv-00346
M.D. Fla.Oct 12, 2017Background
- Pappalardo met Stevins ~17 months before filing and disclosed a product concept; Stevins said she knew investors and suggested filing a patent to protect confidentiality.
- Stevins offered to pay attorney fees for the patent application if Pappalardo named her as a joint inventor; Pappalardo hired the attorney Stevins recommended and filed a patent application naming both as inventors (application remains pending).
- Relations deteriorated after investors Stevins referenced never appeared; Pappalardo sued Stevins for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and sought a declaratory judgment regarding inventorship.
- The Court previously dismissed the original complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Pappalardo filed an amended complaint, and Stevins moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The Court found it lacked authority to decide inventorship of a pending application (only the PTO Director may alter inventorship on pending applications) and questioned diversity jurisdiction and sufficiency/particularity of fraud/negligent misrepresentation allegations.
- The Court granted Stevins’ motion and dismissed the case, directing the clerk to enter judgment and close the file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists to declare Stevins not an inventor of a pending patent | Pappalardo asks the Court to declare Stevins’ inventorship false and that paying fees doesn’t make her an inventor | Court lacks authority over inventorship of pending applications; only PTO director may change inventorship | Dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction as to declaratory relief on pending application |
| Whether the Court has diversity jurisdiction (amount in controversy) over state-law claims | Pappalardo contends damages exceed $75,000 based on loss of exclusive rights to the invention | Damages are speculative and contingent on PTO action; amount in controversy not adequately pleaded | Diversity jurisdiction not established; $75,000 allegation is conclusory/speculative |
| Whether fraud and negligent misrepresentation are pleaded with required particularity under Rule 9(b) | Pappalardo alleges Stevins misrepresented access to investors, inducing him to name her as inventor | Allegations lack the required specificity on statements, timing, and resulting damages/causation | Claims fail Rule 9(b) and plausibility pleading standards for fraud and negligent misrepresentation |
| Whether the complaint states a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6) | Pappalardo argues facts support reasonable inference of liability | Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and finds allegations insufficient to make unlawful conduct plausible | Complaint dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility applied to complaint allegations)
- Brooks v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1997) (Rule 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud pleadings)
- HIF Bio Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharm. Indus. Co., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (no private action to challenge inventorship of pending patent applications)
- MDS Inc. v. Rad Source Tech., Inc., 720 F.3d 833 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussion of § 1338 and federal jurisdiction over patent-related matters)
- Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985) (elements for misrepresentation/damages in Florida law)
- Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1984) (causation and damages requirements for fraud-based claims in Florida)