Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office

Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal because the USPTO’s motion to dismiss was timely and the complaints failed to state a plausible claim under either the district court’s construction or the applicant’s asserted ultra vires theory. The court also declined to consider newly raised constitutional challenges and denied requested mandamus/certiorari-type relief. The decision underscores that challenges to USPTO examination conduct must be pleaded as viable causes of action with factual support, not merely as disagreement with examiner or Board findings. Affirmed; no costs. The applicant’s patent application for a wearable thermal device was rejected by the examiner, affirmed by the PTAB, reopened in continued examination, rejected again, and affirmed again by the Board. The district court construed the pro se amended pleadings as asserting civil-rights, criminal-statute, FTCA, constitutional, and contract-damages claims, and dismissed for failure to state a claim and related defects. The Federal Circuit held the government’s dismissal motion was timely because the 60-day response period ran from completion of required service on both the Attorney General and the local U.S. Attorney, and the deadline rolled from Sunday to Monday. Even accepting the applicant’s appellate framing as an ultra vires challenge, the court found the pleadings inadequate: alleged record falsification was only disagreement with USPTO factual findings, and the § 103-based allegations rested on meritless legal theories. Unraised constitutional challenges to the Patent Act of 1836 and the AIA were not considered, and the court denied mandamus relief seeking allowance and patent-term relief. § 103 standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential damages § 103 standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential damages standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential