« Outhouse | Main | Not Open For Business »

January 12, 2011

Divorced

Divorce involves paperwork. In this case, Juris Zanis Pupols divorced himself from reality long before he filed his patent application for "controllable reciprocating Ac/Dc powered specialty products for life enhancement," which he abandoned for failure to pay the requisite application fee. He petitioned to revive "on account of unavoidable delay." Alas, the claimed delay was not to have lost his mind and just found it. That, at least, would have gotten a laugh, if not sympathy. Instead, Pupols got taken seriously, and not sympathetically enough. At least to Pupols' way of thinking.

Juris Zanis Pupols and JZP Enterprise-USA v. USPTO and Topco Sales (CAFC 2010-1245) nonprecedential

The "PTO considered Pupols' arguments of financial hardship and physical incapacitation, and concluded that he had not carried his burden of proof to show that the delay was indeed unavoidable. In its denial order, the USPTO noted that a person seeking revival of an application due to unintentional delay may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137(b). Pupols did not file any other petitions in the USPTO."

Carrying a burden of proof tires one out.

Pupol's then discovered egregious violation.

On September 14, 2009, Pupols filed a pro se complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against the USPTO, Topco Sales, Incorporated ("Topco"), "Martian Tucker Sr. formerly in the USA now in China Republic," and China. In his complaint, Pupols appeared to claim that he had invented a device that he described as "controllable reciprocating Ac/Dc powered specialty products for life enhancement," and had filed the '582 Application directed to that device. He alleged that Topco incorporated his invention into one of its devices and received a patent on it from the USPTO through "Cronyism & fraud, Theft," and due process violations by "USPTO agents."

How dare they. Every patent prosecutor knows too well of "due process violations by USTPO agents." It was salt in the wound that the district court judge just could not connect the dots.

The district court dismissed Pupols complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court stated that Pupols' complaint was confusing and difficult to decipher. The court interpreted the complaint as seeking to allege a conspiracy between the USPTO, Topco, Martian Tucker, and China to defraud Pupols. The court held that USPTO was a government entity entitled to sovereign immunity against suits for money damages, and that China, as a foreign state, was entitled to immunity against suit. Moreover, the court concluded that Pupols had not alleged the elements of fraud necessary to state a claim under Rule 9(b). However, the court allowed Pupols to amend his complaint to remedy the deficiencies.

Whereupon Pupols proved his ability to accurately calculate damages down to the decimal point.

In his amendment, Pupols requested the "Supreme Court & Senate Judicial Oversight Committee to resolve any error in oversight the USPTO Agents may have had during review of their careers & Plaintiffs Patent Application." He also requested "Cease & Desist of all Reciprocating Powered Merchandise from Topco Sales Inc." Additionally, he stated a demand for 7.5 billion dollars for "Recovery of losses, business & personal." The district court found that the amendment did not correct any of the deficiencies of the original complaint and did not allege any facts to show why Pupols was entitled to any form of relief. The court therefore dismissed the case on December 23, 2009.

Pupols appealed the injustice, in the process demonstrating an unerring consistency. Who said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds?" Should that have been lost minds? After all, spontaneity is an indicator of an enlivened consciousness. Connect the dots to that if you can.

On appeal, Pupols' informal briefs are just as difficult to decipher as those at the district court. He appears to make the same claims as those in his district court complaint and amendment, in essence, appealing the district court's denial of his claim for 7.5 billion dollars in royalties as well as the court's refusal to grant a cease and desist order against Topco.

The CAFC laid it on thick with irascible rationale. Reasonble inference, after all, is just a state of mind.

 We agree with the USPTO that Pupols' complaint was properly dismissed. The district court carefully reviewed Pupols' original complaint and amendment, and properly concluded that Pupols' allegations failed to state a claim that was plausible on its face. The only decipherable claims in the complaint are possibly those of conspiracy and fraud, but Pupols failed to clearly allege any of the elements of conspiracy and fraud. The statements in his complaint, even if interpreted in a manner most favorable to him, amount only to bare allegations. He failed to meaningfully plead any facts that support those allegations against the defendants. Pupols' conclusory statements are insufficient to enable a court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendants named in his complaint are indeed liable for any of the misconduct that he alleges. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Ironically, the appeals court makes Pupol's case that foreign countries have gotten too big for their britches. Sarah Palin as President would fix that.

To the extent that Pupols alleges ownership of the patent awarded to Topco, we agree with the district court that he may not sue the USPTO over an inventorship issue involving his invention and Topco's patent. See Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 882 F.2d 1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[A] potential infringer may not sue the PTO seeking retraction of a patent issued to another by reason of its improper allowance by the PTO."). The district court was also correct in concluding that Pupols had failed to plead any exception to the statutory immunity available to the foreign state of China.

What is wrong with the world today, and yesterday, and the day before that, and so on, is that no gives a helping hand.

Pupols also appears to argue that the district court failed to assign him an attorney and did not consider his disabilities in dismissing the case... Civil litigants are not, as a matter of right, entitled to court-appointed counsel in federal court, and only under exceptional circumstances will a court appoint counsel for indigent litigants. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 852 (7th Cir. 2010). The district court found that Pupols had failed to make any reasonable attempt to secure counsel to represent him in this case prior to requesting court-appointed counsel. We agree with the district court's finding and we see no exceptional circumstances that merit an appointment of counsel here. It was therefore within the sound discretion of the district court to deny Pupols' request. See Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995) ("As a threshold matter, a litigant must make a reasonable attempt to secure private counsel.").

To the extent Pupols argues that the district failed to consider his pro se status and review his complaint accordingly, we disagree. The district court was mindful that pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. The court allowed Pupols to amend his complaint and advised him to "follow the dictates of Rule 8" in doing so. The court dismissed the case only after Pupols failed to meaningfully amend his complaint to allege facts that showed he was entitled to any form of relief.

This "to the extent" caveat makes you wonder the degree to which close attention was paid to this grievous injustice.

In an act of astonishing agility, Pupols managed to limbo under the "low bar for pro se litigants." You'd think he would have scored points for that. But no.

Pupols further appears to seek revival of his abandoned patent application. We decline to address that issue because it was not raised or addressed in the district court. We have considered Pupols' remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Because Pupols failed to meet even the low bar for pro se litigants to avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court properly dismissed his complaint. Accordingly, we affirm.

Those in the legal profession may wish to consider, as Pupol's lucidly did, that raising issues is overrated. After all, in any lawsuit between two parties, of all the issues raised, while somebody's right, somebody's wrong. That just can't be right. What happened to win-win?

Affirmed. Pupol should be happy that the court affirmed his divorce. Now he can get on with his life, such as it is.

The ruling was nonprecedential because such divorces are so common nowadays. And yesterdays. And the days before that....

Posted by Patent Hawk at January 12, 2011 12:47 PM | Litigation

Comments

Some of these folks are not well; they deserve more sympathy than derision. Having a "million-dollar idea" can be terribly destructive, both financially and emotionally.

An inability to connect dots is not the problem. Guys like this (and I say guys because I have never heard of a woman going mental because of an invention) are connecting dots, alright. That's the problem, they are connecting lots and lots of dots, which is a real rush. It's cocaine. But they can't see that when the dots are connected, the picture they end up with doesn't make sense.

I hate these stories.

Posted by: Babel Boy at January 13, 2011 8:47 AM

bable boy;This is likley one of my conceptions also I wonder what year he filed. Thats right if you dont connect the dots properly you go down in flames in the courts.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 13, 2011 9:54 AM

Babel Boy,

The humor in the entry is not derision. Nor were the courts bending over backwards for Mr. Pupol, which may be rightly called condescension, derision.

Only one without a sense of humor would consider the pathetic as being off limits for humor. But one without a sense of humor is pathetic, and deserves to be laughed at, with derision. Mr. Pupol's sense of humor, or lack thereof, was not an issue in this entry. An attempt at entertainment from obvious comedy material was all that was going on here.

Your sense of empathy is to be commended.

Your projections as to Mr. Pupol's mental framework are ludicrous, unless you are his twin brother. In which case, your projections might not be ludicrous, but you might otherwise be.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at January 13, 2011 9:51 PM

bable boy; one second thought I think the courts may not have been asking mr poulious to bend over on this one although the subject matter at issue may have had a bearing.Not being able to sue for retraction and reissuance when the plaintiffs chain of title is correct and new evidence shows a valid reason would be an injustice of course withoout including me in the suit his claim is frivioulious or floozious such as the product may be deamed.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 14, 2011 12:25 PM

Dam hawk, don't mess with insane people. Next thing you know your whole staff (if you have staff) will have had an arizona/Virgina Tech pulled on them. You've got to take these kind of people a bit more seriously.

Posted by: 6000 at January 14, 2011 1:58 PM

6000,

Thanks for the advice.

Alas, very few humans are not insane, myself included, and I find taking humans seriously tedious. They don't deserve it. (Taking oneself seriously is a sure sign of mental illness.)

This once-lovely planet is overrun with witless, loony, hairless simians hell-bent on destruction in so many ways, some actually quite creative. There's even a patent system for it.

"Filthy earth monkeys," to quote Invader Zim. I only wonder if Zim meant "filthy" as expansively as I mean it.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at January 14, 2011 2:40 PM

This one may look whorse than I originally thought.Hopefully the judges were disbelieving his claim of inventorship even though he was first to file.The concept of this company invested in manufactureing and therefor your not entitled to anything is a promotion of IP thefts.Inventors may have to resort to a policy of patent filing only where granting is guaranteed previously a seriously inovation retartive concept.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 15, 2011 7:50 AM

Although the courts dident consider these following arguments hopefully they would sway the a verdict in similar cases.The plaintiff having filed first was indegent and overwhelmed by market takeover of the second or third theftor due to there non first to file filing. they made large profits leaving the correct chain of inventorship with no compensation. Lack of money here equares to justification to defraud the concievers chain of title of anything including retraction and reissuance.The inventor looses in 40 different methods in this system.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 15, 2011 3:28 PM

BTW, how is that pro se patent litigation of your own going on, hawkie ?

We want an update

Did you do any better in court than poor Pupols ?

Share your success with us :-)

Posted by: angry dude at January 18, 2011 10:56 AM

clearly our justice system hasent reached close to perfection yet when an indivedule can go to court with a first filed patent application and not recieve a judgement based on inventorship I guess you cant argue injustice in the system to recieve justice. Clearly when you have a situation where common sence logic and common law would give a settlement by a jury of normal citizens without all the instructions gag orders struck comments ect then the verdicts presently being handed down dont constitute justice and should be overturnable be citizens apeal juries.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 19, 2011 2:20 PM

clearly our justice system hasent reached close to perfection yet when an indivedule can go to court with a first filed patent application and not recieve a judgement based on inventorship I guess you cant argue injustice in the system to recieve justice. Clearly when you have a situation where common sence logic and common law would give a settlement by a jury of normal citizens without all the instructions gag orders struck comments ect then the verdicts presently being handed down dont constitute justice and should be overturnable be citizens apeal juries.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 19, 2011 2:20 PM

We have the best justice in the world money can buy

Posted by: angry dude at January 20, 2011 9:26 AM

angery dude; I feel that Illeagle is more than just a sick bird. Oh superman where are you now.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas at January 20, 2011 1:53 PM