Stinson v. Nejah

Background

Ronnie Stinson represented himself. He alleged that defendants Ash Tankha, his patent attorney; Allen Nejah, his general manager; and United States Patent and Trademark Office employees Richard Hong and Luny L’ao infringed his patent and colluded to steal his patent application.

Stinson alleged that he submitted a patent application for an invention called Flashpoint in July 2020 through Tankha. The patent issued in November 2021 as U.S. Patent No. 11,164,495. Stinson alleged that his original application was abandoned, that Tankha rewrote the patent without his consent, and that the issued patent reflected a scheme involving Nejah, Tankha, and the USPTO employees.

The complaint asserted three causes of action: patent infringement, fraudulent registration of copyright, and removal of copyright-management information. The defendants moved to dismiss. The government defendants argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for misrepresentation-based claims. Tankha also argued that a binding arbitration agreement existed and that the complaint failed to state a claim. Nejah adopted the other defendants’ arguments.

Court’s analysis

The court said the patent-infringement claim did not match the allegations because the makers of the product that Stinson believed copied Flashpoint were not named as defendants. The court also said the allegations did not present a dispute over who invented the patent. Instead, the court liberally construed the complaint as potentially asserting claims such as misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that Stinson had not identified copyright infringement. It also found that he had not identified fraudulent copyright registration or the alleged unauthorized and knowing removal of copyright-management information required for the third copyright claim.

The court ruled that the United States was the only proper defendant for claims against the USPTO employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the United States had certified that the employees acted within the scope of their employment and Stinson had not rebutted that certification. The court dismissed the individual federal employees and substituted the United States for them. It then held that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity for misrepresentation-based claims and dismissed the claims against the United States.

The court separately dismissed the claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that Stinson’s theory of theft was self-defeating because the patent identified Stinson as the inventor. The court also held that the alleged collusive scheme was subject to Rule 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity, and that Stinson had not met that requirement.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. The order disposed of ECF Nos. 16, 38, and 50.