Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts, LLP

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts, LLP The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal as clearly frivolous without resolving whether jurisdiction lay in the Federal Circuit or the Second Circuit, because appellant failed to make any cogent, non-frivolous argument for relief under Rule 60(b)(4)'s exacting 'void judgment' standard. Transfer to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 was declined as not in the interest of justice. Illustrates that the Federal Circuit will dismiss a frivolous appeal outright—without deciding its own jurisdiction—rather than transfer it, when no non-frivolous argument for relief exists regardless of which circuit has jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed; pending motions denied; each side to bear its own costs. Appellant's underlying inventorship correction claim against PepsiCo was dismissed by the SDNY and affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2016; a subsequent fraud-on-the-court action was dismissed and affirmed by the Second Circuit. Appellant's Rule 60(b)(4) motion argued the prior dismissal was jurisdictionally defective because his state claims raised a substantial federal question; the district court denied it as an attempt to relitigate the prior dismissal. The Federal Circuit expressly declined to resolve the jurisdictional question (Federal Circuit vs. Second Circuit under § 1295(a)(1)), invoking its authority to dismiss regardless of how that question would be answered. Rule 60(b)(4) relief requires showing the judgment is void—i.e., the court lacked jurisdiction or violated due process—a standard appellant failed to meet with any cogent, non-frivolous argument. Because the appeal was clearly frivolous, the court declined to transfer to the Second Circuit even assuming that court had jurisdiction, finding transfer not in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential standing / jurisdiction non-precedential