Sacchetti v. United States, 711 F. App'x 979

John and Mark Sacchetti sued the United States on November 19, 2015, alleging unauthorized government use of two patents (a design patent and U.S. Patent No. 5,604,798) and a trademark for the phrase "The You Talk Two Phone."
The government notified implicated contractors; CryaCom joined as a third-party defendant.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the patent claims accrued more than six years before the complaint and the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over Lanham Act trademark claims.
The Claims Court found the patent claims accrued before November 19, 2009 (outside 28 U.S.C. § 2501’s six-year jurisdictional limit) and that trademark claims belong in District Court, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Mark Sacchetti died during the proceedings; substitution attempts failed and John Sacchetti alone appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Claims Court has jurisdiction over §1498 patent claims given §2501’s six-year limit	Sacchetti sought compensation under §1498 for government use of the patents (implicitly contends accrual was within six years)	Patent claims accrued before Nov 19, 2009, so suit is time-barred under §2501	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show accrual within six years; Claims Court lacks jurisdiction
Whether each unauthorized use restarts §2501 accrual or accrual is non-continuous	(implicit) Repeated/continuing uses may support a timely claim	Accrual begins at first unauthorized use; repeated uses are not new accruals for jurisdictional purposes	Court applied precedent that accrual began before the limitations period and rejected continuing-accrual theory
Whether the Claims Court has jurisdiction over Lanham Act trademark claims	Sacchetti asserted trademark infringement for the registered phrase	Trademark claims fall under district court jurisdiction (15 U.S.C. §1121(a)) and are outside Claims Court subject-matter jurisdiction	Dismissed: trademark claims must be brought in District Court
Whether pro se status or liberal construction of pleadings alters jurisdictional burden	Pro se pleadings are construed liberally	A pro se plaintiff nonetheless must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence	Liberal construction did not overcome lack of jurisdictional proof; dismissal affirmed

Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) (party must establish Claims Court jurisdiction by preponderance)
Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir.) (jurisdictional burden standard)
Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir.) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of jurisdictional dismissal)
Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir.) (standards for reviewing Claims Court jurisdiction)
Caguas Cent. Fed. Sav. Bank v. United States, 215 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir.) (28 U.S.C. §2501 is jurisdictional)
Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United States, 855 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir.) (§2501 must be strictly construed)
MacLean v. United States, 454 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.) (strict construction of §2501)
Starobin v. United States, 662 F.2d 747 (Ct. Cl.) (first unauthorized use starts accrual; uses are not continuously accruing for §2501)
Regent Jack Mfg. Co. v. United States, 337 F.2d 649 (Ct. Cl.) (discussing accrual and accounting problems if each use restarted accrual)
Hyde v. United States, [citation="336 F. App'x 996"] (Fed. Cir.) (accrual principles for §1498 claims)
Bissell v. United States, [citation="41 F. App'x 414"] (Fed. Cir.) (accrual timing for government-use patent claims)