Ottah v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

Chikezie Ottah filed the matter against Metropolitan Transportation Authority and represented himself. The filing concerns a patent-infringement dispute involving U.S. Patent No. 7,521,840 and an allegedly infringing camera product. Ottah’s submission argued that the camera contained components comparable to elements described in the patent’s claims.

The court’s order addresses Ottah’s request under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) permits a party to seek relief from a final judgment or order in specified circumstances. Ottah asked the court to return the case to the calendar while he awaited a decision on that request. He stated that he had repeatedly contacted the court’s office for information and had not received notice of a decision.

The Motion

Ottah submitted evidence and argued that the evidence resolved any concern about whether the patent presented a valid legal claim. His memorandum discussed patent-infringement law under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and claim construction, which is the process of interpreting patent-claim language. He argued that the accused camera satisfied the patent’s claimed elements.

Ruling

The court denied Ottah’s Rule 60(b) application. It stated that a Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time and concluded that this motion did not meet that requirement, referring to the November 22, 2023 order that dismissed the case. The court also stated that Ottah’s appeal from the judgment had been dismissed and that there was nothing further to litigate. The court therefore did not decide the merits of Ottah’s patent-infringement arguments in this order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. It directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 40 and mail Ottah a copy of the endorsement.