Allen v. Cole

Background

Kent A. Allen, appearing without a lawyer, filed the action without prepaying the filing fee. He alleged that he had ideas for the Google search engine, Google’s map software, and the Instagram platform, but was not credited or compensated. He also alleged that he was deprived of the ability to profit from registering various well-known domain names, including Google, Amazon, and Postmates.

The court noted that Allen had filed a prior related proceeding making the same claims against different defendants and had attached substantially the same facts. The court also described several additional similar complaints that Allen filed seeking to proceed without paying filing fees.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Allen’s allegations about his ideas as potential claims for copyright infringement or patent infringement, and treated his domain-name allegations as a claim under the federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Copyright. Copyright law protects original works of authorship and their expression, but it does not protect an idea by itself. The court held that Allen failed to state a copyright claim because he did not allege that he created software or another tangible expression of his ideas, or that he owned a copyright.

Patent infringement. A patent infringement claim generally must be brought by a person holding legal title to a patent and must allege unauthorized conduct involving a patented invention. The court held that Allen failed to state this claim because he alleged only that he had an idea for something like Google or Instagram. He did not allege that he developed the technology or received a patent.

Cybersquatting. The federal cybersquatting law addresses bad-faith registration, use, or trafficking in domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to distinctive trademarks. The court held that Allen’s allegations did not plausibly show that any defendant violated that law. Instead, the court said, Allen’s allegations that he intended to warehouse domain names connected to well-known businesses appeared to describe the type of conduct the law prohibits.

State-law claims and amendment. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any remaining state-law claims. Although the court stated that Allen might be able to invoke diversity jurisdiction for those claims, it declined to do so for the reasons given in an earlier round of the case. The court also declined to allow Allen to amend or refile the complaint because it considered the claims wholly implausible and amendment futile.

Disposition

The court dismissed Allen’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees. It warned that vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Allen from filing future actions without paying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.