NORTON v. USA

Filing 10

UNREPORTED ORDER. granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. Signed by Judge Marian Blank Horn. (lld) Copy to parties.

Download PDF
lln tre o.lnitr! Strted €0urt of frierdl Chiud No.14{33C MICHAELANTHONY NORTON E!9 Sg Plaintifii h Eglla Eglpglg Application; Motion to Disml8s; Lack or Subj€ct Maner Ju.i8dicfon i Failura to State Claimi Intell.ctu.l Prcperty, t UNITED STATES, Micha€lAnlhony Nonon. Resron VA p!9 S9 Craig A. Newoll, Jr-, TrialAtloney Commercral Lingation BEnch Civi Division, Uniled States Oepanment ol Justrce Washinglon, DC for lhe delendanl. Wilh him were John Fargo, Dtreclor Cvll Orvson, Oepariment of Justce. and Joyc6 R. B6nda, Acling Ass stanl Atlorney Gene6 Civil DMsion, Department of Jusll@ OROER HORN. J. FINOINGS OF FACT e!9 S9 pla nlfi,r M chae Anlhory Norton, fled a @np aint in lhe United Slates Coun of Federal Claihs 'selll ogl lorrh a demand lor tudgment against the Unted States n lhe sum of $398 306.00 USO'ior violations of his aleged lrademarks, registered copyrights and a patent application'?by varous p vate enrtes. Mr. Nonon Plainlils comp a ol notes that lllhe Plaintifl has sought egal assista.ce in California, Ohio Massachusetts New York Vngina and Unted Kingdoh to reso ve such lo no '?Mr Norlon ailached a copy oi his patenl applcalion liled with the Uniled Slates Palenl and Tradema Offr@ (USPTO) lo his complant According lo lhe applcalon, the siatus or his palent app calon s Abandoned -. Falure to Respond toan Ofiice Action The USPTO def nes an abandoned appication as an applicalion lthat] is no longer -rhe pending and. lhus, cannot malofe nlo res stralon' United States Patent and Trademark Otiice, Trademad Bascs: Abandoned Applications, hnpt rw uspto gov^rademarks/baslcs/abandon lsp (lasr vls ted Mar 9, 2015) sec 37 C F. R 1 1 35 ( I 997) - Abandonmenl lor lailure to reply wilhrn lime period. demands judgmenl against lhe Uniled Srates, be€lse a prvale enlrty. World Capital Ma(el. nc {wCM) alegedly srole his business ldenliy and because the Stale oi Caliloha lost hs idenfty and dened hm !.employmenl ins!€nce beneiils Athoogh Mr Nodon s complainl identifLes rhe Unled Stares as lhe defenda.l, Mr Nonon does nor speciicaly claim rhar rhe u.led states vioated a.y of his copyriqhrs, tradema.ks, palenls. or any other ighls lo which he is egaly enlilled Nonelheless, il appea6 that Mf Nodon blames lhe Uniled States a.d ls "lflragmenled jurisdicliona enlrtEs tor "allown9 rhs ro happen. despite thal his arlegalons arelor acr ons allegedly raken by Dnvate entiles and lhe Slale ofCalfo.nia Mr Norlon clams thal n o of his aleged copynghled works Femhica a.d A L ne In ihe Sand '' we.e adapled wthoul hs aulhorzarro.. lrom 2012-presenl in lhe iom ol a lereesion show htled veep' and regislered wilh lhe U S Copyriqhl Ofii@ rn 2011 by Amando annucc and HBO, Inc Plarnt i slales he egElered lhese wo s with the U.rte! Stales Copyighl Olli@ in 2003 and 2002 resoeci velv Among his mullple alegahons Pla ntitt also clams lhal ior an "App, he 'li ed an applicalron tor palenl proteciion wfh lhe USPTO . January 2006, and rha|Iil.2013, the Plainlill discovered 3 claims of lhe App had been rmplemeored . Oho by TeamNEO, Incl.l who hned Atlas Adverlisi.g, Inc oi Colorado to do soch parlial rmplementalion IoI lhe Appl n 2010 after lhe Plarntis App was repcled by USPTO Panrifi alleges rhat'TeamNEO Inc. receves its iundrng lom two prio. enllies which lMr Nodo.l previously approached whrb seekrng lo rmplemenl lhe App: Jlhpslad Inc and lhe Oho OevelopmentOffi@ Fudher Mr Nodon clarms that In 2008 a law lim, Posnelli Law, filed "for proteclion oi a Trademark (wo.ds and rogo) iitled Odyssels , which the Plainrfi had used as eary as 2007 to p.omote the implenenlation of lhe App Plainlili clains hls drscovery ol Polsinellr Laws tradehalk filing s pedinent "as bolh lhe App and the Posnelr aclion lall wnhh the same business sector of compuler soitware a.d emer9ency franagemenr sery ces in addton, plarnlil seeks damages agahst Ihe Un[ed Stares lor alleged wrongdoing by WCM and lhe Stare ol Ca orn€ Plainr fi c a ms thar in order ro promote his business n 2013 he enlered nto a Jornl ventle sgreemenl with WCM. "who p.omrsed an n a capta cont.buron ol $50000 accodrng ro Mr Nonon. in June 2013 afte.lhe agreement was sgned WCM registe.ledl a C,corp in Caliiornia litled Odysseus. Inc but. lhe jornt venrure agreemeit was abrdged, and no subsequent conributon occured As a resllr. Mr Norton claims that wcM slo e his business dentily Mr Norton also clarms he .epoded a "business identiry theft' lo the Secrerary ol slale or Calirornia in July 2013. anerwhich the State reported to the Plainlilf that hls 3 lhe United Siales Copyrghr Offces records rellecl thal Mr copyrght for'A Lne . rhe sand rn2001. but does not reflect lhat a copynght for 'Feminica ' 2 dent v was losl wnh them and de.red hrm Unemolovmenl nsofance benefts awarded lhe p€viously Isiclnonth (emphasis n ongrnal) Finaly plaintifi aso seeks redress because he claims that irom June 2013 14, as a resut ot the above his "individla credn score p!frmeted 200 ponts fiom neaF 700 to 495. whie alother mentio.ed panies protited trom Plainlffs work, {he sufieredl an unusual'tax alowance burden ' Plantifl seks damages in lhe amount of $398306.00: (1) $40,270.00 lor TeamNEO h ring Al as Advei(ising to partia ly mp emenr plainl ffs App (2) $300,000 00 for 'H BO, nc pa.l a ly imp ement[ingl Plainl ffs Copy.ighted work ' (3) $50,000.00 for 'WCl',4 stealtinsl Plainlilfs business dentily: (4) $8,036 00 rof the amount ot undistrrbuled Unemployment Insurance because lhe Slate of Calfornia lost plainlffs idenrty and (5) an undatemnad amaln\ d& to fqragmenred ju sdicuonalentities alowing lhis lo happen. (emphasis iorgna) Accofdng lo lMr Norton lhe Unted Slales Courl of Federa Cams has ju.sdiction over his cohplanl becaose {tlhe work ol lhe Plarntilf has protections recoded n lhe U.S. Copyrighi Ofice and Palenl & Trademai< Ofir@. and the nalure of lhe work has maoy crossove.s with regard to state and internalional jlrisdicllons. Howeve.. the maio.itv oislch remains n Ihe United Stales' Defendanl responded lo pantffs complahr by flng a motion ro dismiss ior lack oitunsdicl on and for fa llre lo slate a claim po6lant ro Rule 12(bX1) (201a) and Rule 12(b)(6) of lhe Rlles of the US Coun or Federal Cams (RCFC). Specifi€lly, derendanl argu€s ihal Nonons cam ot coprghl olringemenl should be dismissed for lack of luisdction because ths Couds luisdrction s limted to claims oi dnecl inirngement by or ror the Uniled Slales and not by pNate parlies.' Delendant also argues thal'Noi@ns clarm of palenl intrngement should be dismised tor lack oI lursdiclon because Nonon abandoned his applcaron belore rhe PTO and was lhus nevef issued a patent'Furlher defendant states Nonons claim of t.ademark inft ngement shouLd be dismissed tor ack otjur sdict on because the Lanham Acl p aces jursdiclon for lradema.k clarms against lhe Unted Slales n the lederal distficl and leirilorial couns' Deieodani also argues that ltlo rhe ertenr ihat Norton seks relief from the Uniled States lor lhe aciions ot lhe State of Caifornia or any other State or foreisn country, this Couri lacks jursdcircn unde. lhe Tucker Acl lo address such clarms The.eiore, the governmeol €quests the lclompaini be d smissed for ack of 'Plainl f d@s notelaborate o. the'unusual s tax alowance ouroer Plainldr ind @res he €lco ared rhe 53OO OOO OO based on rhe U S Copyight Ofii@ s 2013 repon'thal lhe aveage amount awa.ded fo. willuly infiinged copyrghl is $r50.000 perwlllully infinqed work tursdiclon or in the allenalve. for talure lo state a cam upon which reliel can be Plaintifi did nol .espond to lhe argumenls rased in lhe defendanls mollon to dism ss. instead he nled a one page documenr r lled 'Mol on ior Jldgme.t on the Pleadings,' in which he u€es an ear y r.ial and tor judgmenl on lhe pleadings He also 'tepfesenls lhe tacl€l conteniions have evdentiary suppod and have been specincaly, so idenlired and have evidenliary sLpporl aftera reasonab e opponunily Per RCFC 9l [sic], Pla.lfi has descr beldl lhe palenl . . alreged to be inirnged' The app catio. lor patenr pfesented n the Complani 6 tusl thal a patenl exafrpe or economy ngenuity communicalions and novev The Colrl has suficenr rnterconnecledness among the Rue oI Law and ex sthg agencies to determ .e v a .ecord ol the Uniled Slales Palenl & TEdemalk Offi@ Irom 2006 Plainlffs pre- examination and examination phase anempis at commoncalion wilh Central Intellgence Agency on the patentable ad (whrch in mariage or merger quaifies lhis Court as good as any wilh regard ro toisdrction ovef lhe unpre@denied ad) via record of the Unded Stales Copyiiqhl Otri@ from 1 998 wilh regard to willfllly iniringed Copyrghted wo in lhe Complainl v a fe@d of ihe Fedeal Boreau of Inveslgalon t.om 2013 and Secrerary oi Siate ot Calilornia tom 2012 wiih regad to lhe business ol OdFseus, Odysseus being lhe commercra activ y represenled by lhe Plainliil and applicalion DtscusstoN When delermining whether a comp ainl lied by a p@ S9 plainlfi is sulticienl to nvoke review by a coun, p!9 !e plainllls afe enltled lo lbera construclon ol lhen pleadings 99C Farnes v. Kemer, 404 U.S 519. 520-2r (requning that allegations conlained n a p@ !9 complainl be hed less slringenl standards lhan forma pleadinss drafted by lawyeB ) !9!.S lclrgd 405US $8 (1972) !99 slsg E!dsg!_! Es4U9, 551 U s 89. 94 (2007); Nuohes v Rowe, 449 U.s s, 9-10 (1980)i Eqtclle_! gsllhE 429 U.s 97 106 (1976). lgL! deltcd 429 U 1066 (1977)i MatXessJ Uniled States, 750 F 3d 1324 1322 lFed Cir 2014)t Damond v United Slates, 115 Fed Cl 516. 524 at!! 2015 WL 527500 {Fed Ctr Feb 10. 2015) However, 'ttlhere s no dury on the parl of the tra courl lo creale a claim which lthe plainl]f4 has not speled oll in his lor he.l pleading " Lenoen v Unted States, 100 Fed. Cl 317 328 (2011) (allefalions r oiginal) (qoolng Scoon v. Unted Staies,33 Fed. Cl.285,293 (1995) (quoting Cark v Nat Traveers Life lns Co. 518 F2d 1167. 1169 (6th Cir 1975)))iSeCAEe Bussie v Unted States 96Fed Cl 89,94 ?fr!.443 F App\ 542 lo s ' The @!rl notes lhal deiendant d@s nol exptarn the basis ior delendants belief lhal plainlff has iaied to stale a claim, and whelher its fail!.e to siate a claim argument app ies lo all of pLaioliffs allegations (Fed Cn 20r1):Minehanv uniled Slares 75Fed Ct 249,253 (2407) "WhireaprqEc painlif is held to a less st.qent slandard than thal of a plarntfi represented by an altorney. theptqSeplanlft nevertheess bea.s lhe b!rden of eslablEhing lhe Courls jurisdction by a preponderance or the evidence ' BGs_!-!l!!!9!LS&llc!. 93 Fed Cl 163, 165 (201 0) (cil ns Hlohes v. Rowe 449 U s al I and Ieylgrl-UaLte!19latq9. 303 F3d 1357, 1359 iFed Cn) ( Panlift beaB lhe burden of showng turisdiclion by a preponderane or ihe evidence ) lel S ClC !cl!S e! &!9 dglcd (Fed. Cn 2002)); !99 qlsg shelkoiskv v Un ted states, No 13'1016C, 2014 wL 5648973, ai'4 (Fed Cl. Nov. 4, 2014) ( PUh le the coun may erclse amb go ties n a pro se plarnlitrs comp a nt. lhe court does nol excuse Ia complainisl talures. (quoting Henke v Uniled States,60 F 3d 795 799 (Fed Cr. 1995))i Hairis v Uniled slates 113 Fed Cl 290 292 (2013) (Although plantitrs pleadings a.e held lo a ess slringenl standard, such lenency wilh respecl to mere fomailes does not relieve the burden to meel jlrisdiclonal requnements (quolng Minehan v Unired States, 75 Fed Cl at253)) t involves a power 1o hear a case can never be fodeiled or waived.'Arbauoh v. Y & H couns e9q. 546 U.S 500 514 (2006) (quoting United Staies v Cotlon, 535 U S. 625, 630 (2002)) lF]edea couns have an Independenr obigation ro ensure rhal lhey do not ex@ed ihe scope ot ihetr junsdic0on and lheretore lhey musl 6se and decide lu sdiclionalqueslonslhallhe pa.les e her ovenook of eecl notlo press.' Henderson ex rel Hende6on v Shinseki. 131 S Cl 1r97, 1202 (2011)t !99 als9 Hertz Cop. v fuCld 559 U S 77 94 (2010) ( Couds have an Independe.t obligation lo delemine whether subjecl matler tursdrclron ersls. eve. when no pa.ly challenges il." (citing tubauoh v Y & H Coro 546 U s al s14)) SlgqaLQgyEcs-E!._LqEA-bq, 269 F.3d '1340 1342 (Fed Cir 2001) ("tAl co!.l has a dlty lo nqune nb ils junsdiclion to hear and decide a €se (c ng Johannsen v Pav Less Druo Slo.es NW.Inc.918 F2d 160, 161 (Fed cn 1990))) Vjs4l-!sq-]$-!-89!9!!qv!!l9!:qts*|!9., 115 F.3d 962, 963 (Fed Cn 1 997) ("lClouds musl always look to then jlr sdict on, whelher the paias ra6e the issue or nol 'Ihe obteciion lhat a lederal coun bcks subjecl matter jursdiclon may be rased by a pany o. by a coud o. its own initative, al any slage in the itigalion, even afler ira and the entry ortodsme.l Albslsbl-Yrllllgg@., 546 U S al 506; 9C9 elsg Cenl Pines Land Co L L.C. v Un(ed States 697 F.3d 1360, 1364 n 1 (Fed Cn 2012) ( An obtection to a coon s slbjecl malter junsd ction can be ra6ed by any party or lhe co!.r at a.y slage of (igaton hcoding afier r al and rhe enlry of judsment ' (c lins Adauoh v Y& H Colo. 546 US ai506));Rick's Mushrcom Sery.Inc v Uniled stales,521 F3d 1338 13a6 (Fed 2008) ('tAlny pany may chalenge, or lhe @url may rase sla sponle subjed maner jursdicion al any lime." (cting Arbauoh v Y & H Co.o,546 US al 506i Folden v Unted Srates,379 F.3d 1344 1354 (Fed Cn ) rg[s and Iq& batu delied (Fed. cir 2004), cei. lEdcd, (2005); and Fann no. Phi lils & lMolnar v. Wesl 16A F 3d 717, 72A \Fed 545 U S 1 127 C..1998))) Pikurnv Unted States.97 Fed. Ct 71 76 ellgeldsmssed 425F.Appx 902 {Fed Cn 2011). li taci, Islubjecl maller jur sdicl on is an inq! ry lhal lhis court must rase su6 sporao, even ne her pa.ry has.aised rhs ssue Mg!abq[9 Labs. nc.v Lab. Coro olAm Froldinos,370 F.3d 1354 1369 (Fed C r ) (cllhg IgItljg Prods. lnc. v lMead Coro . 134 F 3d 1481, 1485 (Fed Cn ) Iq[g deded and en bm It is well eslablished lhal slbjecl-mailer lunsdrclio., because ) cr s where suooeslon declned (Fed Cn ) 99d. de!!d, 525 U.s. 826 b?!9 d9lred (Fed cr 2004) !9!L ofanled i! p?d 9!L !98 548US 546 us 124 (2006) 975 (20051 4 (1 998), !9I! gld I9I! C! !3!.!9@.-etAE -8gld!!ss dEEElgil 4 _Ep:99!s1t grgllc.s. The Tlcker Acl grantstur sdicl on to th s coun as lollowsl The Unled Slales Courl ofFedeGlClaims sha lhave jurisd ction lo render judgmeil upon any claim aganst lhe United Slales founded either upon the Consllul on or any Acl ol Cong.ess o. any regulalon olan execullve depadmenl, o. lpon any exp.ess of mpied conlracl with lhe United States. or lor iqu daled or unliquidaled damages ln cases not sounding in 28 U S C S 1a91(ax1) (2012) As interpreled by lhe Uniled States Supreme Courl the Tucker Acl waives sovereign ihmundy to alow jlrsdiclon over clarms aganst the Un ted States (1) founded on an express or impled contract wth the United States, (2) seekng a rerund fiom a pr or payme.t made to the governme.t, o. (3) based oi iedeE conslilulronal, slalulory or .egulalory aw mandalng compensalron by the ledeE governmenl for damases slsrained s99 u4!9cs&tcs_!._N!ycjqN3@, 556 u s. 287, 289-90 (2009);Uniled Srares Mitchetr,463 U S.206,216 (1983)iSegqlsg GEente Cntv . Anz. v. Unted Srares. 487 F 3d 871 . 875 (Fed. C r.), !e!.S alC lgLS 9!_!4! 1142 (2008)i Patmer v Uniied states. de4!s! (Fed cir 2007) !9d Ce!€!. 5s2 U 168 F 3d 1310, i314 (Fed Cn 1999) ! s -Not every claim invoking ihe Constilulon. a iede6 slalule, or a €guralon is cognizab e wder lhe Tucker Act The . a m hlst be one lor money damages againsl ' Unled Slares v M rchet 463 U S al 216; lee abA U.tted lhe Uniied Siates . Slales v White Mountain Apache Tibe 537 U S 465 472 (2003); Smith v United S!a!9!. 709 F 3d r114 1116 (Fed Cr) 9CIL d9!t9d, 134 S. Cl. 259 (2013) Radioshack colD ! uniled srares 566 F3d 1358 1360 (Fed. cr 2009); gEls Mushroom Seto.Inc v Uniled Slaies 521 F 3d ai 1343 ( lPl anl fi must dedrya slbslsntNe source or law lhal creaies lhe nght lo recovery ol money damages againsl the Uniled Slates ) In Onlano Powe. Generatpn loc v United Slales, lhe United Slales Coun oiAppeals forlhe FederarCircuil identilied lhree lvpes of monelarv ctaims ior which tuisdiction ls lodged n the Uoled Stales Court of FedeE Ctaims. The coun The unde.lyrng monetary clarms are ol thee types First. claims aleging the exisience of a contract between the pantifi and lhe governmenl talwilhin lhe Tucker Acts waiver . . Second the Tlcker Act s waiver encompasses claims where lhe p a rtifi has paid money over to lhe Govemmenl dnedy or n eifecl, and seeks relurn of ar or parl or ihat sum. Easroorr S S lcoro v Unted Slates. 178 Cl Ct 599 605-{61 372 F 2d fa12.l 1007 {8 I{1967)l (describ ns ilesal exacl on claims as cams in which the Gove.nment has the citizens monev in its Docket" (quoling Claoo v Uniled Stales 127 Ct Cl 505. 117 F Supp 576,580 Thnd, ihe Coun ol Federa Clarms has jurisdiction over those claims where'money has nol been pad bul lhe plainriftassens lhal he is neverthe ess enl tled to a paymenr l.om the treasury ' Easloort S S. 372 F 2d ai 7 Claims in lhs thrd calegory where no payment has been made lo lhe governmenl. ether direcl y or . effecl requne thal the "parlicu a. provision of law reied opon granrs rhe claimant expressly or by implcaton, a right to be pard a cenao sum. U: qee aba Teslan tv Uniled Statesl 424 U S 1392.1401 02 [19761 (Whe€ lhe Uniled Slales is lhe defendanl and lhe plainlrllis nol suing lor money nproperyexacled or rebined the basis otthe iedea cam whelher il be lhe Constitltion a statute or a regulallon does nor creale a cause oi action tor money damages unless, as lhe Coodofc aims has stated that basis in tslf . can lary be nlelp€led as mardating compensalion by lhe Federa Governmentio. the damage sustained " (quoting Eastpon S S, 372 F 2d at 1009)) This category is commonly retered lo as claims brcught under a money-mandating" statute (1954) Ontario Power Generation Lnc v United Slales 369 F 3d 1298. 1301 (Fed Cn 2004); s99 alsg Twp. ofsaddle Brookv unired stales 104 Fed cl 101.106(2012) To prove that a slatlte o. regualbn s money-mandaring, a plaintiff must demonstrate lhal an ndependenl source ol subslaniive law relied upon €n tanv be Inlepreled as mandating compensalDn by rhe Fede.al Governmenl - U.ited States v Navap Nation, 556 U S at 290 (quoling Un ed States v Testan, 424 U S. 392, 400 (1976) 999els9 Unned Slaies v. While MounlarnAoa.he Tibe,537 U S al472i![i!gd Slales v Milchell. 463 U S al 217: Blueoorl Co. LLC v United States, 533 F 3d 1374 I 383 (Fed c r. 2008). a94. !E4i9d 55s U S 1 r 53 (2009). The source oi law granr ng mo.elary relref must be dislnct from lhe Tucker Acl ilself. SCC Uniled Slates v Navaio !3.!!! 556 U.S al 290 ( rhe Tucker Act d@s nol creale subslanlive nghls; lit is sihply al jlrisd ctiona provisionl] lhal operale(sl to waive sovereign lnmunity ior claims premrsed on other sources ol law (e li rhe srarute is noi statutes or conrracrs) mooey mandaling, lhe Coun oi Fede.al Claims acks jursdiclon, and the dismissal shoud be for lack of slbjecl fianer t! sdiclon Jans Helcooter Sefr. lnc. v. Fed Aviation Admin , 525 F 3d 1299 1308 (Fed Cir 2008) (quoting Greenlee Cntv. Ariz v Uniled States. 487 F 3d al 876)t F sher v Unied Stares 402 F.3d 1 167 1 173 (Fed. Cn 2005) (The abseice oI a money,mandating source is faralro the couns juisd ction lnderthe Tucker Act '); Peooles v Unted Srares.87 Fed C 553 565-66 (2009) g ). When deciding a case based on a lack orsuqed maner ju.isdicl on orlorlaiure lo slale a caim, thrs coun mlsl assume lhat all undrspuled facts aleged in the comllainl are true and mLst dlaw a I reasonable infe.ences in the non movants iavof Padus 551 US 89,94 (2007) (ln addilon. when ruing on a See Erickson defendanl s motion to dismiss, a jldge frlst accepi as ttue a l of rhe factua al egar ons conlained in the complainl (clingAelAll Coo v Twomblv, 550 U S. 544, 555 56 (2007)(cting swe.kewcz v sorema N 534us 506 508 n 1 (2002))))i scheuer v v a s. 232. 236 (1974) { Moreover, I s welestablished lhat. in passng on a motion to dismiss whether on the g.olnd ot lack of juisdicl on over lhe subject matle. o. fo. faiure to state a cause of act@n rhe alegalons ol the compLarnt should be construed favorably ro the peader"). 4u993!9d 9! 91Ie! s4!!.ds !y !c49sJ Fitoe.ald 457 U.s 800 (1982). E999!E9d !t Ds!E_!-&!e.rq, 468 US 183 190 (1984) United Pac Ins Co v Uniled States 464F 3d 1325.1327 28(Fed.Cn 2006) Samish Indian Nalion v Uniled Stares, 419 F 3d 1355. 1364 (Fe! Cn. 2005)i g9E9 cascade Cop. v Uniled srares 296F3d 1339. 1343 (Fed Cn) lelS 4!d lebg e! 8l9!es,416 U b?!! delrc! (Fed cn 2002), !9(!9!4! 538us 906(2003) Coovnoht Inlrinqemenl Claims Seclion (b) oi28 U S C S 1498 provides n pan, whenever the copyright n any wolk prolected under lhe copyrighl laws of lhe Uniled Slales shall be infringed by the Uniled Slales. by a coporation owned or contro ed by lhe Uniled Slales or by contraclor slbconhactor. or any peGon tum. or corporation acting fof lhe Govern menl and w th the a uthoizatbn or consent of the Government rhe ercusive aclLon whch may be blolghl lor such iniiingement shall be an action by the copyrighl owner agarnst the Unted Slales in lhe Cou.l of a Federal Caims for lhe recovery of hB .easonable and entrre @mpensanon as damages rorsuch Inifrngemenl 28 U.S C S 1498(b) (2012) P a nlif alleges lhat lwo ol his copynghted wori(s Femini€' and A Line in the ' were adapied wilholt hs auihoizalion Lom 2012 present in the tom of a lelevsioo show iiled Veep and regislered wth lhe U S Copy ght Ofii€ in 2011 by Sand Armando lannucci and H BO Inc ' Oelendant states that M r. Nonor's 'claim ot copyright Infr ngement should be dismissed lor lack ol jur sdict on because th s Couns jur sd ction 6 imiled to caims of d rect nfrngement by or lor the United States, and not by privaie The lJn ted States Coon of Federa C ams has specfic io sdlction in copyight cases ony when the copyrgll owner bings an nfringement action aganstthe U.iled slales 28 u s.c s 1498(b) ' secl on I 498(b) cod fies a I mited wsiver oi sovereiqn 'Al claims fied in rhe Unired Stales Cood oi Fedefat Ctaims must be ned against lhe U nrled States as rhe defendani S99 RCFC r 0(a) (20l4) Seg 3lsq 28 U.S.C S 1491 (a) Uniled Slales v SheMood.312 US 584 588 (1941) (cilalion omitted) ("ltf lhe retiet soughl s against olhe6 than lhe lJniied states ihe surt as to lhem must b€ ignored as beyond the jurisdiction of rhe coud ' (citation omined)): Statted Unre! Srates 635 F 3d 129A, 1321 n 1 (Fed Cn 2011) Mav Unted States, A0 Fed Qt 442, 444 ( Jlrisdrction, lhen, is lim ted ro slns aganst rhe United States'). qft|, 293 F Appx 775 (Fed c r ). rchs eld !9[s q! b49 dc!]ed (Fed ctr 2008) Esk.idoe Research v v rhmunty for copyright nf.ingement clarms aqarnst the governmenl and estabishes lhis coun as the exclus ve rorum to hear such clarms 9!cp9i.lQ9-Lle,_!-!bi!9!Lgle!99. 76 Fed Qt 702.711 (2007), A[!, 533 F 3d 1374 (Fed Cn 2008), lgIL dedgd. 555 U S 1153 (2009)i Seg 4E9 Gavlord v Un ed Stales 678 F 3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cn 2012):Avialon Soihxare. nc v United Staies. 10r Fed Cl 656, 662 (2011) E9y!9_L U!]]C!_S!e!CS.44 Fed. C 60,62-63 (1999) (lrlhe excusive action which may be broughl lor slch lnlrngemenl shal be an aclon by lhe @py ghl owner against lhe Unied slales intheCounor Federalclarms (qoorins 28 U.s.c S 1498(b)), sjfg,200 F 3d 1369 (Fed Cn 2000). Mr. Norton appears to alege lhal t\4r lannucc and HBO. Inc violaled his copyrighls of Feminica and A Lne in the Sand and that lhe United Slates is responsble ror these pa.les aclions In his complaint plaintitf states: Whle bolh lhe Copyrghl Ofti@ and USPTO allege to offer protect on to individla s, a question ot the Plaintitf s: on whal s@le as compared 10 corporal ons with other spsif ed lax staluses? The Panlifl obseryes a preierence lo corporalons over ndivduals at both egencies Plarntilf laults the Unied slales and ils {irasmeoted ju.isdictional enl ies lforl a lowins lhis to happen ln ils nolon lo dismiss. defendanr notes thar'Nofton appeaG to beieve thal ths lack oi proteclo. rs roored in the Governmenfs puponed prefefen@ lowa.ds co.porations over indvduals and that lhe Government s being lntlslly enriched by taxing the proils lhal HBO has alLegedy made ofi of ts copyight Inrnngement" Delendaol argues, however.'Seclon 1498 however, d@s nol waive lthe Government sl sovereign mmunily ior secondary lrabi ity based on nlr ngemeni by unaulhorized and independenl thnd panies (quoting eghc!_!-tl4i!9!L9t4e9, 98 Fed Cl 156, 170 (2011) (brackets in o.glna) As funher explained by the Cohen courl, 'undef ils lim led wa ver of sovere g n rmmln ry the Unit€d States may be held lrable on y ror infnngemenrs by rhe governmenl or by a rh rd pady acllng for lhe govenmenl andwlhilsaulhorzallonorconsent'Cohenv Uniled Slales 98 Fed C a1170 (ciln9 28 U S C S 1498(b));E!e qba Bovle ! Unned Slales, 200 F 3d at 1373 ("Consresss nlenl clearly s to wave rhe governmenls soverergn mmunity io suts for @py.ighl .iiingemenl only when i nfringes a copy.ighl tsel or authorizes or consenls lo niringemenl by a lhnd pany acling ior it ) Although plaintitr names the Uniled Slates as the defendant, he has not set forth any lacls to eslablsh that unted states, ethef d rectly or indirecty infiinged or althonzed or consented lo the inffingefienl ol any ol hrs copyrghls.5e Bovle v. United States,200 F3d at 1373. Nof has he provided any evidence to lhal eftect Colo v Uniled Slales.92 Fed Cl 88.95 (2010)(cilhg Howard v Un ted Srates,230 F 976 (Fed Cn) (The Unned States is lhe ony proper deiendanl belore the Court ol Feleral C a ms ') lqhg !E!€d (Fed Cr 2007)) Shalhoub! United States 75 Fed Cl 584. 585 (2007) ( When a plarntirs complainl names private parties, or state agences ratlrer than fede.al agenoes lhrs coun has no junsdiclion to hear those allegalions')i Sleohenson v Un(ed Stales.58 Fed Cl 186, 190 (2003) ("fllhe gdy Appx975 proper delendant for any matler beiore th,s courr is the lJnited srares, nor ils offcers, norany olherindividua ') (emphasis n onEia) is no eviden@ lhar rhe Unred Slales has waived its soveregn immunity for secondary liabilly based on infrngemenl by unadhonzed and ndependent lhnd parties $eCcohenv Unted States 98 Fed C a1170 Therelore Mr Norton has faied lo eslablshthis court'sjurisdclro. over his copynght infringement claim Moreover, lhere Patenl Inf rinoemenl Claim Seclon (a) or28 U S C S 1498 povdes . pan: Whenever an inveniion descr bed h and covered bv a oatenl of lhe Unlled Slales s used or manutaclured by of lor lhe Uniled States wlthout license ol the owner thereoi or lawlur nghl lo use o. manufaclure lhe same, lhe owners renedy sha be by action against the un ted srares n lhe unled Slstes Courl oi Federal C ams tor rhe recovery oi his .easorabe and enlrre comDensation lorsuch use and manufaclure. S 1498(a) lee ahq Zollek Corp v Unted Srares 672 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed 2012). lMoreover as a threshold matie.. Itlhe Court of Fede.alClaims exclusve lursdrcton po6uant to 28 U S C 51498 over patenl infringemenl caims againsl the Fede.al Govemment is condilloned on the issoan@ of a 'S!g!ghlle!_! lniled slales 89 Fed Cl 755 761 (2010) eplggl dismissed. 2010 wL 1687894 (Fed cn Apr 26, 20 r 0). Section 1498 does nol srani lhe Court or Fede.al Cla ns judsdiclion over a craih for allesed inrfingemenl ol an un ssued palenl SCe 28 U S C. S 1498(a) (Wheneve. an nvenlion desdibed E eld Eglelg! e pelgd ol the United ")i scg 3ls9 Msdjl!t4 u!!!9cl1319s 99Fed.c 627,632 (201r) ("secro. 1498 does not grant the Coun of Federal Claims JufsdElion over a claim lor alleged ntingemenl of an hssued patenl )(cd.q Amoen. lnc v Genetielnsi. lnc.,98 F 3d 1328.1332 (Fed C r. 1996) (explaining that a su t tor iniiingement of a paleni €nnot be brought wher€ a palenl has noi issued)) Mo.eover the nlringement must be by or lor theUn ed Slates Seg28USC S 1498(a) As a waNer of sovere gn immunity, section 1498 is slricl y conslrued 'Manin v Unfed States 99 Fed C at 632 (citng !eCS9!3 Coro v Uniled Slales 220 Ct C 234 599 F 2d 958 968 lgIL !C!jgd, 444 U.S 991 t1979)t 28U.SC C| patent !I srares Mr Norton stales lpllainlil d scovered 3 clams oJ the App had been rmplefienled n Ohio by TeamNEO lncl I who htred Atlas Advert s ng, Inc. of Colorado Io do slch panial implementation in 2010 ailer lhe Plainlift s App was €jecred by USPTO Delendant argues that Mr Nonons claim of patent inf.ingement should be d sm ssed for lack ollurisdrction because Norton abandoned his appi€tion beto.e the PTO and was thus never issued a palenl Mr No.ton appears to allege lhat TeamN EO, Inc and Atlas Adverlising, lnc violaled hE patenton lhe 9pp,"which plaintifi a leges he nred w th the USPTO for patenl prolec0on in 2006 In his comptaint however. plaintifi admts he was never ssued a patent roi thrs App The USPTOs websiie tists panritfs applcalons status s "abandoned. which means his palent appti€tion is .o l0 longer pending and,lhus, cannot halure nto regElration ! The Unled Slales Patenl and Trademark Ofiice Tradema Bascsr Abaodoned Applicalons hltp //M usplo govlfademarks/basics/abaodo. jsp (last v s ted Ma r 9. 201 5) P alntill aso admils thal TeamNEO. Inc and Atas Advenising nc's parliat impremental on ol the App'o@liied alte. plaintffs parenl apprcalon was deemed abandoned Since j!.isdiction rn this coud rs conditioned on the issuanc€ oi e patent, lhis @urt finds that p a nlft has farled lo establsh thls courl s subjecl maner jlrisdiclbn over Mr Norlon's palent inirngemenl carms Moeover. evei i,lr. Nonon had pedected a palenl or this 'App,' ths court stil woud lack jlrisdiciion lo hear his craims slnce he has nol ateged any iacrs lo eslablish liabilv on lhe pan of rhe uniled stales onder 28 us.c s 1498(a) Plaintifi has oor set forth any lacts rhat atege or estabish that ihe United States, either d rectly or ndnec y niiinged hrs palenl Plainlffs patent infringement cams.ifany would be againstTeamNEO nc and/orAllas AdverlEing,Inc Therefore, lhis coort iinds lhal plarntifl has faied to eslabtsh this @urt s subjecr matter junsd crion over h s palent Inlinqehent claims. Tradema( Inlinoemeni Cam Allhough uncear lrom lhe complaini Mr Norton aso appears to atege lhatlhe aw frm. Polsinell Law. and Word Capital lMarket lnc (WCM) violated h s righls in 'a Irademark (words and ogo) litled Odysseus by fling for trade.nark proteclon tor the same rn 2008 and by registerng Odysseus Inc' n Calilona in June 2013 respeclrvery Plainlrfs aleges that he had used thsword and togo as earty as 2007 to promote the rmplemenlalron ot lhe Aoo Detendant slales thal Mr Norton's 'ctaim of Irademark nlringeme.t sholtd be dismssed for tack of urisdtction beeuse the Lanham Acl olaces tLrsoclol lor nadeaarr cla'-s agarsr tlp u.ipd Slares rt-e tederal d st.ict and tetrtora couns r ted States Cou.t ot Federal Ctaims has exctusive jursd ction to copyrighl .fringemenl suls against lhe federat govenmenr and its agents pursuant to 28 u s c s r 4s8(b) lhis @!n does not have jurisdrcrion ro hear cta ms ot lrademark or liade name infrngemenr SCe 28 U.SC S 1498. Jurisdicrion ove. l.ademark infringement claims ies in the United Stares Distfict Couds, not in this colrt h*r Athough lhe LJn S9915USCSl12l(a)(2012)("Thedisrricra.dteirnoracourtsoltheUnitedStates shal h3ve orginaljurisd ction and lhe couns oi appeatoi the Uo te! Slates (oiher rhan the United Stales Coorl ot Appeats tor lhe FedeEt Circurt) sha have appetate tLlsd.rior, ol dlracno.q a'rsrrg rnoe. hir ct-aoledl . I Lockndqa v Llited Srales 218Cl Ci 687,689 (1978) (We therelore concude tharwe have.o ildsdiction over cars for ladera'r nlrngerelr ) T Js oeeLse Jnsdi.tol ove' LdoeTad( ngemenl claims les in the united stales Drsrricl couds o a nlifs ctaims are nol 'nh wlhn l'es(opeortl'scou.l:tursocno. Ptd'nnl aEo do$ Tr anege rha. tf e Jn red 'lrr Nortons other ]unsd ctionat larures aside lhe court notes that pantiff cannot mainlarn a Ftenl irfr ngement claim to.a pate.twhich ooes norexrsr E This chapler rete6 io C hapter 22 Trademarks in Tite l5 ofthe U.ted Stales Code ]l slates voaied any of his tGdemarks, nor d@s he set forih any lacls lo eslablEh lhal lhe Unted Slates, elher directly or ndirectly. infrnged his lrademad<s Based on Mr No.ton s p eadings p a nl ffs lrademark ntr ngemenl claims, if any, appear lo be solelv againsr prvalethnd padies nolthe unted slates. Claims aoainstrhe State oi Cahlornia lo h s compla ni p alntiff appeaB lo faull the Un led Slales ior a low ng lhe slale oI Caliohia lo a low wcM to sleall] Plarntifi s blsiness idently and for lhe State of Calilona denlyinqlhim unemployment Insurane beoenis " The un[ed stales Coln ol Federal Cams does not possess r! sdlclon over claims asse&d agansl states municipalties, and loca government entilles SggSoude6v SC Pub Seru Aulh 497 F 3d 1303 13OB (Fed Cn 2007) ( Cams founded on slale law are also outside the flicksv united slales. scooe oflhe lmited unsd ctior ollhe coun ol Federalcams 1rB Fed Cl.76,83 (2014)i woodson v UnLted Slaies,89 Fed C 640.649 (2009) aI585) E€!91t94-v- U!j!9!-S14ts9. 76 (ctins Shahoub v. united States 7s Fed Fed. Cl 438,440 (2007) i'The Unled Slates does nol have penary authority through lhis courilo hold accolnlable lhs Slate ol lcaliornia] ) Therefore, "lo the exlenl that lhe plarnlff s bringing a ciaim agarnst 3 defendanl other lhan the Unfted Stales oran emDlovee ofrhe Uniled States lhe 6mpani must be dismissed pu6uanl io RCFC ' N4oorc v Pub Deiendei! gff ,cJ, 76 Fed 1 2(bxi ) lor ack or suqed matler j! risdiction Cl 6 i7, 620 (2007). Because p a nlifs claims are against the State ol Calilonla and nol agansr rhe unired states, plainlifi has iailed to eslablish thai this coun has jurisdicl|on over his claims ) c ln Foma Pauperis Aoolicalion panttf submined an applicalion io Proceed b E9!@ e?!ae!!, assedLng lhat he is unabe lo pav lhe requ.ed fiing lees and mirer reqresrm-g of corrl costs and les His Appication indrcales lhat he s Alo.g with his p!9 SC complaint. unempoyed, and lhatforlhe past lwe ve monlhs he has not rece ved any monev rom' blsness, professon or other toms oi sell-emplovmenl: rent pavments rnleresl or dividends. pensions. a.nuiles or lile insu6nce paymentsrgrf6 or inherilances orlrom any other source Pantifs aso assens n his applcalon lhal he does nor have any caitr. savnss or checking accounls, and does not own.ea estate stock bonds. automob les or any olher valuable propeny ln order to pfovLde access to lhs coln |o lhose who cannol pav the liling fees mandated by R!e 771(c) (2014) of the Rues oi the United Slales courl oi Federa claims (RCFC) lhe siaiuie ai 28 U.S C. S 191 5 (2006) permils a court to allow p aintiifs to file a @mplainl without payment oi fees or securily, under sp*inc cncumslanes The slandard in 28 U S C S 1915(aX1) for !! !b@ p3gpe4,! eligibililv is "unable io pav such lees or g ve sec!rily lherefor " Determinalion ofwhal consliluFs onablelo pay'or unable lo give securty lherefor, and therefore. whelherto alow a pantitf to proceed the d€crelon oi the l! !9IE3 p4pe!9 is ef( to plainl,fi planlifis. presiding ludge based on lhe or ;romaro; submilted bv the SeC. c..A Ag!]ed !- q].ugll l2 Colonv. Unil llMensAdviso.v Council,506 U.S. 194.217-1a (1993)t f!cqE!_y-.U!il9d Ulj@lteteq rhe Unded States Slgtsg. 100 Fed Cl 85.92 (2011) In El9!91t94 Court of Federalclaims indicared: !- {Tlhe thGsho d for a mol on to proceed j! lglos p3!p9!E is nol highr The srarute requires lhat the appllcant bs unable ro pay such tees 28 u s.c S 1915(aX1) To be unable to pay such ies'meaG thal payins such fees would mnslilule a $rious hardship on lhe plaintitl, nol that such paymenr rould .ender plainrifi destilute Ejebe]!9or__U!i!9Cs!a!9! 77 Fed Cr 59. 62 (2007): !99 c]99 !.eyesr-ql@Se!9s 71 Fed cl.366,369 (2006) Although lMr Nortons income l€vel, and absene of savings appeaB oiheMise io qoality h m for l! l9!tr3 !3!pe!g slalus, as dEcussed above, his complai.t is b€ing disnissed for lack orjuisdiction. CONCLUSION For the fo€going reasois. the coun GMNTS delendanls molion !o dismiss. ot lhe Court shal enter JUOGMENT consislenl wilh ih s Order Pa.tiffs complainl s DlSiitlSSEo, with preiudice The cle.k IT IS SO ORDEREO. //.4nd.- fiR'An 13 BLAitK HoRN

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?