Ibanez v. Electric Hydrogen Co.

Background

Pedro N. Ibanez alleged that Electric Hydrogen Co., Electric Hydrogen Manufacturing LLC, and Raffi Garabedian infringed claims in his U.S. Patent Application No. 18/761,178. The application allegedly described an apparatus for producing commercial power and water from ocean water using electrolysis, steam boilers, desalination, and distillation. The application had not been publicly released and had not issued as a U.S. patent.

Ibanez alleged that the defendants had mechanical facilities that closely resembled operations described in his application and that they had copied three claims. He also alleged that the defendants’ activities would make it harder for him to convince investors that he originated and patented the concept. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Ibanez also filed motions for a preliminary injunction, summary judgment, an order compelling the defendants to hire a qualified patent attorney as primary counsel, and permission to appear by telephone.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the alleged patent-infringement claim. Federal district courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal patent law, but the court explained that merely applying for a patent does not give the applicant all the rights of a patent holder, including the right to sue for patent infringement. Because Ibanez alleged infringement of a pending application rather than an issued patent, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.

Failure to State a Claim

The court separately held that the complaint failed under Rule 12(b)(6). A complaint must provide enough factual matter to make the claim plausible and must place the alleged infringer on notice of the activity being accused. The court found that the allegation that the defendants’ facilities closely resembled operations described in the application did not plausibly show infringement. It also found that the allegation about difficulty attracting investors was not relevant to whether the defendants had made, used, offered to sell, or sold a patented invention.

The court additionally noted that allegations about statements by Paul Browning, the chief executive officer of Mitsubishi Power America, did not support the claim because Mitsubishi Power America was not a party and Ibanez did not explain the statements’ relevance or allege a relationship connecting them to the defendants.

Ruling

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that additional facts consistent with the complaint could not cure the identified defects and therefore dismissed the case with prejudice. The court denied as moot Ibanez’s motion for a preliminary injunction, motion to compel, motion for summary judgment, and motion to appear by telephone.

Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on December 30, 2024.