Nesarikar v. PTO

Nesarikar v. PTO The Federal Circuit held that the pro se inventors failed to adequately allege Article III injury because their own filings said they were obligated to assign the '288 application, and their conclusory assertions of current ownership were insufficient. It affirmed the E.D. Tex.'s dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A party challenging a PTO fee-status decision, such as micro-entity status, must plausibly plead and support its own ownership or other concrete interest. Here, a position taken before the Office that the party must assign the application undercut standing in court. Affirmed. The Nesarikars claimed micro-entity status under 35 U.S.C. § 123 for the '288 application despite being named on more than four earlier applications. They relied on the § 123(b) exception for applications they were obligated to assign through prior employment. The Office found the showing insufficient, no evidence of the assignment obligation was provided, the fee deficiency went unpaid, and the application was abandoned. In their APA and related suit, the complaint and attached exhibits repeatedly stated that they were obligated to assign the '288 application. They never alleged that they currently own it or provided the contract terms, the assignee, or execution details. The court held that those statements did not clearly allege ownership or injury in fact. Opposition-brief assertions of current ownership were conclusory and could not substitute for pleaded facts, and the district court did not impose too high a burden at the pleading stage. The presumption that inventors own their applications did not help them, because they had represented that a contrary assignment agreement existed (citing Roche). Arguments based on other applications and on reputational interests failed. The first was not raised in the complaint, the second was forfeited as untimely, and no concrete reputational harm was alleged. The Privacy Act claim was not in the complaint. The court did not resolve whether the Paperwork Reduction Act claim had a private right of action, because that claim also depended on an interest in the '288 application that was not shown. standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential