Satchell v. United States

• Decision Date: 18 April 2022
• Docket Number: 19-1984C
• Parties: JAMES A. SATCHELL Jr. and VENDONET INC., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

JAMES A. SATCHELL Jr. and VENDONET INC., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 19-1984C

United States Court of Federal Claims

April 18, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

James A. Satchell Jr., pro se plaintiff.

Joshua I. Miller, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

Armando O. Bonilla, Judge

Plaintiff pro se James A. Satchell Jr., on behalf of himself and VendoNet Inc., filed this action against the United States alleging: patent infringement by various government agencies, including the United States Postal Service (USPS) delays, irregularities, and fraud committed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in examining VendoNet patents, denying patent term extensions, and listing inaccurate patent information; patent enforcement and licensing interference by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in issuing an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion on the Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1084; and discrimination by the United States against VendoNet as a small, minority-owned business. Plaintiffs seek $80 million in damages.

Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' two motions to further supplement their pleadings pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), ^[1] and defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC l 2(b)(1) and (b)(6), respectively. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiffs' motions to supplement the pleadings and defendant's motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

In the original Complaint, filed on December 26, 2019, plaintiffs allege "VendoNet Inc. has been issued over 100 claims to cover Internet vending machines/kiosk[s].'" ECF 1 at 1. The Complaint continues: "USPS has unjustly awarded IBM a[n] $80 million dollar contract [with] knowledge and view of VendoNet's USPTO issued patents," and, further, that other federal (and state) government agencies used VendoNet's patents. Id. at 1-2. In addition to patent infringement, the Complaint alleges that the USPS discriminated against VendoNet in "avoiding] business" with the self-identified small, minority-owned business. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs demand $80 million dollars in relief. ECF 1-2.

Submissions accompanying the Complaint identify three reissue patents (RE): RE41, 543 ('543 patent); RE43, 656 ('656 patent); and RE44, 791 ('791 patent). See ECF 1-1 at 1-2. Each of these patents is a reissue based on U.S. Patent No. 5, 822, 216 ('216 patent).^[2] See ECF 7-1 at 12. All four patents list Mr. Satchell and non-party Johnson A. Asumadu as the co-inventors. See ECF 1-1 at 1; ECF 7-1 at 55, 97 ('543 patent); ECF 7-1 at 34, 99 ('656 patent); ECF 7-1 at 77 ('791 patent); ECF 7-1 at 16, 101 ('216 patent). Relevant here, all four patents were formally assigned to and, thereafter, owned by VendoNet.^[3] See ECF 7-1 at 97 ('543 patent); ECF 7-1 at 99 ('656 patent); ECF 7-1 at 77 ('791 patent)^[4]; ECF 7-1 at 101 ('216 patent). By operation of law, all four VendoNet patents expired on August 17, 2015, when the original patent (i.e., the '216 patent) expired. Compare 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) and § 251(a) with ECF 7-1 at 27 (priority patent application filed August 17, 1995).

On February 10, 2020, with the Court's approval, plaintiffs supplemented their Complaint, asserting:

USPS/IBM's (PS) use of "Internet vending machines/kiosk[s]" that connect to [w]ebsites that display/utilize database information, which dispense physical items upon/after payment is VendoNet's contention. Our additional focus[] is on many other claims in our 3 USPTO issued patents, covering over 110 claims.

ECF 5 at 1. Augmenting their discrimination claim, plaintiffs alleged that USPTO delays adversely impacted the small, minority-owned business' competitiveness in the marketplace. Id.

In filings dated May 6, and November 19, 2021, plaintiffs again seek leave of the Court to further supplement their pleadings. ECF 15, 16. In sum and substance, plaintiffs reiterate that the USPTO's delays and discriminatory actions harmed VendoNet's ability to profit in the "Internet gambling vending machines" industry by effectively devaluing their patented technology. See, e.g., ECF 15 at 1. Plaintiffs further allege that the DOJ's 2002 to 2021 regulatory activities, including a 2011 OLC opinion addressing the Wire Act, interfered with VendoNet's ability to enforce its patents and induced state lotteries to infringe the company's patents. See, e.g., ECF 16 at 1-2. Also pending before the Court is the United States' February 24, 2020 motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ECF 7.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs' Motions to Supplement Pleadings

Pleadings filed by pro se plaintiffs, and the allegations therein, must be construed liberally. See Roche v. U.S. Postal Serv., 828 F.2d 1555, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ("Pro se petitioners are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading."). Accordingly, in evaluating the Complaint filed in this case and the accompanying submissions, the Court construes Mr. SatchelPs factual assertions and legal arguments in the most generous and plausible fashion. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) ("allegations of [a]pro se complaint.. . [are] h[e]ld to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). To that end, the Court previously granted Mr. Satchell's February 10, 2020 motion to supplement the allegations in the original Complaint. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation of plaintiffs' allegations in deciding the government's dispositive motion, the Court similarly grants Mr. Satchell's May 6, and November 19, 2021 motions to further supplement pleadings in this case, the substance of which is summarized above. See, e.g., Harrison v. United States, No. 19-1785, 2020 WL 1492211, at *2 (Fed. CI. Mar. 23, 2020) ("In considering Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court fully reviewed and considered all the arguments and factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the Record.").

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

1. Lack of Capacity: VendoNet

On September 21, 2010, VendoNet registered in the State of Georgia as a domestic for-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in Tuskegee, Alabama. See ECF 7-1 at 5. According to the state registration documents, Mr. Satchell is listed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Corporate Secretary; Mr. Asumadu is listed as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Id. The company was administratively dissolved on December 7, 2016, for failure to comply with annual registration and fee requirements.^[5] See ECF 13 at 23-24. Under Georgia state law, as of December 8, 2021, VendoNet's demise was complete, and the company is no longer eligible to apply for reinstatement. See Ga. Code Ann. § 14-2-1422 (West 2016).

To pursue claims against the United States before this Court, corporations must be represented by counsel. See RCFC 83.l(a)(3) ("An individual who is not an attorney may represent oneself or one's immediate family, but may not represent a corporation, an entity, or any other person in any proceeding before this court." (emphasis added)). The Court's Rule is strictly enforced without regard to VendoNet's dissolved status. See Talasila, Inc. v. United States, 240 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (successor-in-interest to a dissolved corporation's claimed assets may not represent those interests prose if, under state law, dissolved corporations continue to exist for a fixed period of time beyond the date of dissolution fr the purpose of prosecuting, in the corporation's name, any action or proceeding by the dissolved corporation). At the time this action was filed (i.e., December 26, 2019), under Georgia law, VendoNet continued to exist for the purose of winding up its business (Ga. Code Ann. § 14-2-1421(c) (West 2019)), and it could have sought reinstatement under Georgia's five-year wind-up period (§ 14-2-1422(a)). Mr. Satchell is not an attorney, see ECF 8 at 18, 19-20, and, thus, cannot represent VendoNet in this matter.

Initially, the Court contemplated affording VendoNet an opportunity to retain counsel prior to ruling upon the pending motion to dismiss. Ultimately, however, the Court concluded that such an exercise would be futile. First, as noted above, as of December 8, 2021, VendoNet's demise is complete and the company no longer exists for any purpose. As such, it lacks capacity to litigate this action.^[6] See Gas Pump, Inc. v. Gen. Cinema Beverages of N. Florida, Inc., 12 F.3d 181 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (corporation lacks capacity under Georgia law to initiate federal antitrust action after statutory wind-up period expired). Second, as explained below, Mr. Satchell lacks standing to bring this action in his own right. Third, also explained below, the claims alleged, construed liberally, either lack merit or are beyond the Court's prescribed jurisdiction. Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate. See, e.g., Buel, Inc. v. United Sates, 153 Fed.Cl. 402, 403-04 (2021) ("Where a corporate-plaintiff fails to obtain counsel, the ordinary remedy is to dismiss its complaint for lack of prosecution." (citations omitted)).

2. Lack of Standing: Mr, Satchell

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1498 provides in relevant part:

Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owne

...