Paley v. Wolk, 65-C-1543.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-C-1543.,65-C-1543. |
| Parties | Lewis A. PALEY, Plaintiff, v. Morris O. WOLK, Michael E. Rogers, Edward L. Brenner and John T. Connor, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Lewis A. Paley, pro se.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Plaintiff has filed this action pro se against Secretary of Commerce John T. Connor, Commissioner of Patents, Edward L. Brenner, and Morris O. Wolk and Michael E. Rogers, employees of the Patent Office. Acting under the assumption that the above-named defendants are being sued in their official capacity, the United States Attorney has moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that it fails to contain the requisite statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, Rule 8(a) (1), F.R.Civ.P., and that in any event, resolving every doubt in favor of the plaintiff, the substance of the complaint does not set forth a cause of action which could be maintained against the named defendants or could come within the limited jurisdiction of this court. While plaintiff has filed no response to the motion, it appears to the court that the government's contentions are valid and, accordingly, the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction will be granted.
A complaint drawn by a citizen, pro se, is entitled to the broadest possible construction at this stage of the proceedings and were the government's motion confined to plaintiff's failure specifically to include a jurisdictional statement, dismissal of the action would generally be unwarranted. In the instant case, however, the government has endeavored to set out every possible characterization of the complaint, demonstrating the absence of jurisdiction in each case.
Essentially, plaintiff's complaint arises out of several patent applications which he has filed. Two of these, Serial No. 146,152 (filed July 5, 1962) and Serial No. 218,058 (filed August 20, 1962) have been held abandoned. A third, Serial No. 283,343 (filed May 27, 1963) has been rejected on account of undue multiplicity of claims. The rejection of the latter application has apparently been considered twice by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office; no such appeal is alleged with respect to the first two applications. The instant complaint alleges that defendants Wolk and Rogers have wrongfully determined that the plaintiff must reduce the number of claims in his patent applications; that such a requirement is illegal inasmuch as the statute, 35 U.S.C. § 41(1), establishes a fee schedule which contemplates applications having more than one claim; and that the Patent Office regulations providing that multiple claims must differ substantially from each other is an unconstitutional deprivation of plaintiff's right to obtain a patent on his inventions. Plaintiff also complains that a recent enactment of Congress increasing fees required for patent applications and altering the fee schedule with respect to the number of claims is unconstitutional. Finally, plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants are engaged in a "confidence game", obtaining money under false pretenses and "swindling" applicants out of substantial sums of money.
Insofar as plaintiff seeks an order compelling issuance of patents on his applications, this court clearly lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter. Such cases must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, 35 U.S.C. § 145, and, in any event, an applicant must present his claims to the Patent Office Board of Appeals prior to resort to the courts, making judicial action with respect to two of plaintiff's claims premature. While the plaintiff has apparently proceeded in this court on the basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. FCC, CV 75-3641-F
...in every federal court of the country. See Davis v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 369 F.Supp. 277 (D.Colo.1974); Paley v. Wolk, 262 F.Supp. 640 (N.D.Ill. 1965). F. Attorneys' In Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 4, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 1945, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973) the United States Supreme Court reaffi......
-
Driver v. Helms
...But see Kenyatta v. Kelley, 430 F.Supp. 1328, 1330 (E.D.Pa.1977); Davis v. F.D.I.C., 369 F.Supp. 277 (D.Colo.1974); Paley v. Wolk, 262 F.Supp. 640 (N.D.Ill.1965). and jurisdiction, where, if anywhere, precision is The legislative history of § 1391(e) is at best ambiguous, but there are indi......
-
Lamont v. Haig
...186 U.S.App.D.C. at 174, 569 F.2d at 5; Relf v. Gasch, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 238, 241 n. 15, 511 F.2d 804, 807 n. 15 (1975); Paley v. Wolk, 262 F.Supp. 640, 643 (N.D.Ill.1965), Cert. denied, 386 U.S. 963, 87 S.Ct. 1031, 18 L.Ed.2d 112 (1967); Chase Savs. & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Bd......
-
Poe v. Kuyk, Civ. A. No. 76-292.
...Deposit Insurance Corp., 369 F.Supp. 277, 279 (D.Colo.1974); Green v. Laird, 357 F.Supp. 227, 229-30 (N.D.Ill.1973); Paley v. Wolk, 262 F.Supp. 640, 642-43 (N.D.Ill.1965). See also, Griffith v. Nixon, 518 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir. 1975); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. T. V. A., 459 F.2......