Guymon v. Squires

Guymon v. Squires The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the complaint was filed two days late because a pro se litigant's emailed complaint was not a permissible filing method under the Federal Rules and the district court's local procedures. The court also held that dismissal at Rule 12(b)(6) was proper and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice where no further amendment was requested and amendment would be futile. For PTA challenges, the 180-day filing window remains unforgiving, and pro se status or last-day filing complications with ECF rules will not necessarily preserve an untimely district court action. Affirmed. The patent owner sought review of a USPTO PTA reconsideration decision under § 154(b)(4)(A); the 180-day deadline expired on September 25, 2023. He attempted to email the complaint on the deadline and mailed a paper copy, but the clerk received and filed the paper complaint on September 27, 2023. The court rejected the argument that Rule 5(d)(4) required acceptance of the emailed complaint, reasoning that the problem was the filing method, not the document's form; Rule 5(d)(3)(B)(i) permits pro se electronic filing only when allowed by court order or local rule. The limitations defense could be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because untimeliness was apparent from the complaint, filing stamp, and docket; the court saw no basis for equitable tolling based on last-day discovery of local filing restrictions. Dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff did not seek leave for a second amendment, and any amendment would have been futile. standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential standing / jurisdiction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential standing / jurisdiction non-precedential