District Court Grants Dismissal of Due Process Case Against Former USPTO Officials

“Here, Plaintiffs appealed the PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s findings that both patents were invalid…. [T]he appeal alone provided procedural protection against an unconstitutional taking….” – Judge Jon McCalla

https://depositphotos.com/510374994/stock-photo-dismissed-text-paper-envelope-dismiss.htmlA Tennessee district court judge on Monday granted a number of former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials’ motion to dismiss a case brought by Martin David Hoyle and B.E. Technology alleging violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Hoyle filed the suit in the Western District of Tennessee’s Western Division in August 2021 against former USPTO Director Michelle Lee and a number of other former USPTO officials for allegedly depriving the plaintiffs “of their valuable property rights in quasi-judicial administrative proceedings before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’).” The complaint further claimed that PTAB proceedings have been “tainted by various improprieties and underhanded tactics, designed to stack the deck against [plaintiffs] and in favor of their far more powerful opponents.”

According to the complaint, Google filed several patent applications in 2006-2007—when Michelle Lee was Head of Patents and Patent Strategy at Google—that were rejected by the USPTO because the technology described was already patented in the ‘314 and ‘290 patents. Google then abandoned its applications, but Hoyle discovered in 2007 that the company—along with other tech companies, such as Facebook, Microsoft and Samsung—had been using targeted advertising technologies that infringed on his patents and filed patent infringement suits against them in 2012, just after the America Invents Act (AIA) was implemented.

Also in 2012, Michelle Lee became Director of the USPTO’s office in Silicon Valley, and two years later was nominated by President Barack Obama to be Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO. She was confirmed by the Senate in 2015. This was the same year that the PTAB issued decisions in seven separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that Google and the other companies filed against B.E. Technology to invalidate the patents.

The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) for violations of the plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. In the Bivens case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “it would enforce a damages remedy to compensate persons injured by federal officers who violated the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures.”

The defendants filed their motion to dismiss in November of 2021, arguing, among other points, that the plaintiffs were seeking an improper extension of Bivens to a new context and that “Plaintiffs’ claims . . . plainly challenge high-level governmental policymaking” that would require “unacceptably burdensome inquiries into sensitive government deliberations about those policies and officials’ motives for creating them.”

In its analysis of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court noted that the Supreme Court has since 1980 “made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity.” After Bivens, two other cases—Davis v. Passman, decided in 1979 and Carlson v. Green, decided in 1980—expanded the Bivens holding to two other contexts, but since then the Court has avoided expanding it to any “new context,” which it has defined as any case that is “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court.”

Despite Hoyle’s arguments that the plaintiffs “have quite clearly alleged that Defendants’ conduct deprived them of a ‘constitutionally protected’ property interest without due process of law” and that “Defendants’ contention that this case seeks an improper extension of Bivens ignores well-established historical precedent, in a long line of cases, recognizing the availability of an implied constitutional cause of action under Bivens for claims arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” Judge Jon McCalla ultimately found that “this suit would be a new context for Bivens because of the meaningful differences between this case and the three Supreme Court- recognized Bivens actions.” The judge said that since “the statutory and regulatory regimes for patent protection were not implicated, nor were high-ranking officers of the USPTO involved in any of those actions,” the context is new, and thus the court must consider whether any special factors counsel hesitation for extending Bivens.

In this case, “Congress has legislated monetary remedies and injunctive relief for patent infringement and has legislated avenues to challenge the validity of patents, so it follows that Congress would have implemented a remedy for unconstitutional takings of patents as well if it had so desired,” explained the district court.

Most importantly, said the court, the plaintiffs had an alternative remedy to correct the due process violation. The judge wrote:

“Here, Plaintiffs appealed the PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s findings that both patents were invalid. While Plaintiffs contend that they were unable to raise these specific due process arguments in that appeal because they did not know these factual allegations at the time, Plaintiffs were still able to appeal the taking, and the appeal alone provided procedural protection against an unconstitutional taking…. Because PTAB decisions can be appealed to the Federal Circuit, any improper bias or abuse by PTAB officials can be guarded against by the judicial branch, thus ensuring that the PTAB panels’ reasoning is sound and making a Bivens suit for invalidated patents unnecessary.”




Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Join the Discussion

29 comments so far. Add my comment.

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 27, 2022 07:51 am

    The two OBITS are my PRIMA FACIE

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 23, 2022 08:20 am

    I wonder if Ms. Cole takes patent and copyright fraud suits against the USPTO?

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 22, 2022 07:53 pm

    If the District Court in West TN granted a dismissal, was this by any chance including the case I filed that was never sent back to me?
    Finding it a year later with 3 receipts with the owner of the DEBIT CARD who dropped them off with someone for my illegal enslaver who then put them in my home 1 year later. HE hid them under my fabric in a box. The only reason I found them almost immediately after my illegal enslaver who was running two scams. One where I was dead so he could claim all my property, Amand the other where he was claiming I was incompetent.
    The evidence I have, I can revisit what I never was allowed due process again as usual.
    I’m sure my evidence will allow me my due process.
    I just posted my marriage license again on FB because it is not on my picture gallery anymore. So maybe the sheet i posted with it saying I was Sarah Mayock and married James McPherson could be another hint of their fraudulence. MAYBE my marriage cert was changed to make it look like Sarah Mayock married James McPherson.
    And why my Stroud SS CARD was stolen. So it really looks like I’m not both people on the list.
    It says I died the same day my aunt died. But I’m also chained and alive. Isn’t this amazing.

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 22, 2022 05:55 pm

    “I find it interesting** that a post by [‘lower case] anon — NOT to be confused with my posts [I sign here with the capital letter] has initiated an all-too-common diarrhea outbreak from George.”

    It’s a good one, though, isn’t it (as always)!!! Lots of things to think about, anyway, unlike yours that offer NOTHING of value or ‘creativity’! You both sure wouldn’t make good inventors (note I said “good’ ones)!

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 22, 2022 05:45 pm

    P.S. I don’t think you get to just ‘run over’ someone’s inventions, patents or other IP and then just ‘drive away’, either – even if your’re the USPTO or one or more of its employees (and there could be many)!

    If anyone commits a provable & intentional ‘fraud’ (say by ‘ignoring’ statutes or by ‘making up’ their own), you don’t have to go to the PTAB (and wait for them to support their ’employers’), I think you CAN & SHOULD go to state courts & present your evidence there – before a ‘real jury’ of your peers, not ‘bought & paid for’ judges catering to big monopolies who are afraid of ‘upstarts’ and ‘real competition’!

    I think that might be a LOT better way to go. And if it gets tossed out, you appeal it, including to the court of public opinion and the press! I’m sure the PTO & its new director would ‘love’ that, given they don’t even want to talk about their past super-secret ‘SAWS’ program! I think it would at least be ‘fun’ for all involved – especially ‘individually named’ examiners & their supervisors! Might need a ‘brave’ judge though!

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 22, 2022 05:41 pm

    Yah, when I found proof of my IP being used with a worthless design patent by the prosecuting atty. and his possee. The online info was immediately shut down, and the prosecuting attys. work with the company was immediately erased. I copied his prosecutions before they were removed off the Patent Search pages though.

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 22, 2022 05:25 pm

    Note: My keyboard’s busted and I have to keep rewriting things – sorry for all the mistakes. My ‘a’ key is really bad. Will replace tomorrow. Again some comments could have numerous mistakes for now. Just fill in what’s missing or correct on your own (like What ==> Want below).

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 22, 2022 05:19 pm

    @ Anon & anon (though there my not be any point in distinguishing two people afraid to even use they first names, for fear the ‘Feds’ might come after them in their black helicopters). lol!

    What to rephrase you ‘stupid comments, guys?

    Especially you ‘anon’ about federal immunity??? That was a REALLY dumb one, wasn’t it?! I think that proves you’re NOT an attorney of any kind!

    If you’re a federal employee, you can’t run someone over (or now get an abortion) & just drive away! I think you’re confusing ‘qualified immunity’ with ‘diplomatic immunity’! LOL! Even THAT isn’t totally ‘bullet proof’ protection!

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 22, 2022 05:09 pm

    @ concerned

    Thanks. We may well try the state courts instead of federal ones. Federal agencies & especially ’employees’ don’t enjoy ‘blanket immunity’ for any and all ‘crimes’ or even civil infractions. Certainly not for violations of state Constitutions! They have to ‘play ball’ in most cases not covered by federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

    Also sovereign immunity is being chipped away at all the time. We may charge The PTO with a number of crimes now, including fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud (RICO) , unfair business practices (favoring the large over the small), false advertising & ‘hype’, etc. Still just thinking about it!

    At least it could ‘force’ the PTO to disclose and ‘make public’ a whole lot more than they ‘want to’ (and Congress isn’t making them). It’s about time independent inventors really took them on! I think the way is through the state courts, who clearly have a vested interest in promoting innovation in their own states too, to increase tax revenues & jobs!

    Can’t create many ‘new jobs’ without good, strong, ‘enforceable’ innovations and patents! Can you? We don’t think so. And China only needs a catcher’s mitt now, to catch all the denied and abandoned inventions out there!!! China doesn’t HAVE TO STEAL much anymore. Just wait a little & 95% of American inventions become free (one way or another)! The USPTO is even HELPING China now – LOL!

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    September 22, 2022 12:09 pm

    I find it interesting** that a post by [‘lower case] anon — NOT to be confused with my posts [I sign here with the capital letter] has initiated an all-too-common diarrhea outbreak from George.

    ** in the classic Chinese use of the term

  • [Avatar for concerned]
    September 22, 2022 07:50 am


    Ms. Knowles wrote a paper about a right with a remedy. If an organization has a right to do something, there needs to be a remedy to keep things balance.

    The CAFC, USPTO and PTAB have been taking rights and the inventor, in reality, has no remedy. Current appeals are a process, not due process, in my opinion and also my attorney’s opinion.

    SCOTUS will not take cert on any s101 matters to correct or clarify the lower courts decisions, so any remedy for the inventor exists “officially” in procedure only and not in reality. With the current case law, all patents/applications can be invalidated or rejected by cherry picking the portion of conflicting law to get the desired result. Patent law has been swallowed.

    Good luck with your efforts. Any effort that balances the scales would be welcomed.

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 08:02 pm

    @ Greg DeLassus

    Yeah, sometimes going to court takes a lot of ‘guts’ (and some luck). But hey, if you never try . . . (other people can get hurt too). And I don’t get paid by the hour, either (win or lose). I either win, or I starve! That kinda helps ‘focus the mind’! lol

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 07:56 pm

    “Your own intuitions about what is “right” or “fair” have very little relevance to the operation of sovereign immunity in the state courts.”

    We’ll see when I get there! LOL! Better to be laughed out of court, than not even try! And there’s always room for ‘new law’ (even RICO), if you have evidence against employees, of organized ‘felony fraud’ or other felonies (even if not the government itself). Can’t work for the government & commit felonies! Can’t rob a bank (with other federal employees), right? Can’t get off a murder or rape charge because you work for the government, right?

    And if not RICO, I have lots of other possible claims, including gross negligence & simple and individual fraud! Besides first ‘test’ won’t be against the PTO (that would still be way too hard). Another agency of government. That case (in state court) has the advantage of going beyond just government employees. That one has lots of defendants! Some laws should stick to at least some of them!

    Where there’s a will (and money), there’s a way – even if it’s ‘out of court’ or in the court of public (and press) opinion! Who wants to get a really bad reputation? Who wants to get a lot of bad publicity? Sometimes the latter is the best one of all! Thank goodness for Twitter! How many cases have been settled on Twitter? LOL!

  • [Avatar for Greg DeLassus]
    Greg DeLassus
    September 21, 2022 06:44 pm

    Pretty sure none of that applies to cases involving felony fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, or state/federal RICO charges.

    Whenever you find yourself feeling “pretty sure” about a point of law, the thing to do is to go on Lexis (or Westlaw, or Google Scholar, etc) and see if you can find a case that speaks to the point in question. You are not going to find a case that says that federal agencies are subject to state RICO jurisdiction.

    Sovereign immunity is a barbaric relic of the common law. It is not a just and noble doctrine, full of common sense exceptions. When I think of sovereign immunity, I think of Mel Brooks in “History of the World Part 1” saying “it’s good to be the king.” If you imagine that sovereign immunity gives way whenever a cause is just, you do not quite understand sovereign immunity. Your own intuitions about what is “right” or “fair” have very little relevance to the operation of sovereign immunity in the state courts.

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 04:44 pm

    @ anon

    Try to keep up! Especially on what’s happening to ‘sovereign immunity’! It’s slowly going away.

    It might go away, entirely, one day, if enough people want it to (and they should). At least government employees shouldn’t be able to get away with things other people aren’t allowed to (including gross negligence, fraud and of course murder). Luckily, there’s never been any ‘sovereign immunity’ for murder (except ‘unfortunately’ maybe by CIA agents & soldiers).

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 03:54 pm

    @ Greg DeLassus

    “Federal sovereign immunity really does cut off your ability to bring the suit that you have in mind in state courts. Lopa v. Brinker Int’l., 111 Conn. App. 821, 828 (2008) (“Because… the federal government has not expressly consented to the jurisdiction of our [Worker’s Compensation] act, we do not have the authority to require the federal government to comply with our state statutes”).”

    So, what if a woman, who’s working as employee of the federal government, gets pregnant (in a state that now prohibits abortions), wants to get an abortion, and gets sued by any ‘random person’ who finds out she wants to get an abortion in that state and so wants to collect their $10K ‘bounty’? Does ‘sovereign immunity’ still apply there? Don’t think so anymore! How does THAT work now if states are supposed ‘to defer’ to the federal government – all the time?

    States could therefore now allow for ‘bounties’ in the case of patent fraud too, right? Anyone proving that a patent is invalid (in state court) could, in theory, bring suit against that ‘invalid’ or ‘fraudulently enforced’ patent in a state court, couldn’t they, if there would be such a new ‘state law’, right? And especially someone affected by such a patent. What would be the difference? A private citizen could then be allowed to sue for a ‘bounty’, even if they have nothing to do with the patent & weren’t even directly harmed by it. What’s good for the goose . . .

    I will ‘endeavor’ to get IP covered by ‘state laws’ – one way or another! LOL! Just takes some creativity, that’s all! The USPTO can’t get away with EVERYTHING! They can’t get away with FRAUD or running a ‘protection racket’ (on behalf of big corporations & monopolies), codified in the AIA & the earlier, ‘super-secret’, SAWS program). That could easily all be unconstitutional. All it would take would be one or more ‘whistle-blowers’, that’s all! Must be at least one among > 13,000 employees!

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 03:30 pm

    @ Greg DeLassus

    Pretty sure none of that applies to cases involving felony fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, or state/federal RICO charges. How can the government (or its employees) be immune from those types of charges, if you can prove ‘intentional fraud’ & not just negligence?

    What about for ‘gross negligence’? What about causing ‘deliberate harm’ to a business, or deliberate acts ‘benefiting another company’ (i.e. corrupt acts)? What about for ‘patent fraud’ (like Elizabeth Holmes committed), though only the government itself could sue her for that? And, by the way, why DIDN’T they sue her for that? Ignorance about patent law, maybe? Was even mentioned in “The Dropout” (on Hulu).

  • [Avatar for Greg DeLassus]
    Greg DeLassus
    September 21, 2022 02:57 pm

    Eventually a lawsuit by an inventor is going to make it to the Supreme Court. But it probably won’t be Hyatt…

    Hyatt already went to the Supreme Court and won (Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012).

    Patents are ‘property rights”… The federal government waived its immunity for claims of injury, property loss, and wrongful death by adopting the Federal Tort Claims Act.

    But claims under the FTCA can only be brought in Federal Court, so this will not get you the state court suit for which you are hoping. Federal sovereign immunity really does cut off your ability to bring the suit that you have in mind in state courts. Lopa v. Brinker Int’l., 111 Conn. App. 821, 828 (2008) (“Because… the federal government has not expressly consented to the jurisdiction of our [Worker’s Compensation] act, we do not have the authority to require the federal government to comply with our state statutes”).

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 02:33 pm

    Eventually a lawsuit by an inventor is going to make it to the Supreme Court. But it probably won’t be Hyatt (and might take another 20 years).

    I don’t think a conservative (and ‘originalist’) court is going to be happy with the USPTO! Maybe that’s why the new director is planning on making a lot more changes there, especially on behalf of women & minority inventors (and those of limited means). But that still won’t be enough to fix our disastrous system that now ONLY ‘protects’ the largest entities (who can afford it).

    Patents are now entirely ‘class based’ property rights! If you’re in the wrong class, you have nothing of any real value at all! If you’re in the ‘wrong class’ (like 99% of Americans), it’s all just a ‘cynical illusion’ of a property right, created by the PTO to ‘justify’ funding & many salaries (some quite high). Elon Musk thinks they are ‘nonsense’ too (but for different reasons). Trust in patents is eroding rapidly, as it should! Haven’t seen many ‘small time’ inventors succeed with them (unlike in the 1800’s when even ‘penniless’ ex-slaves could become affluent & even rich with JUST ONE patent – not 20 or 30!).

    Anyone think that patents are issued (and enforced) ‘equitably’ anymore? Anyone over 100 years old? Anyone that knew Tesla? Any of those people not on the take or benefiting from ‘inequitable’ IP law’?

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 01:43 pm

    @ anon

    Patents are ‘property rights”

    “Federal Tort Claims Act:
    The federal government waived its immunity for claims of injury, property loss, and wrongful death by adopting the Federal Tort Claims Act. Basically, if you are injured by the government’s negligence, you can sue the government for damages. For the government to be liable, there must be harm caused by the negligent act of a federal employee or independent contractor treated as a government employee.


  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 01:05 pm

    @ anon (who knows nothing)

    Burn pits? Contaminated water at military bases? Government can’t be held liable & have to pay for that??? Where did you go to law school dude?!

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 01:01 pm

    @ anon (who knows nothing)

    If the government uses outside contractors (say for patent searches) they are not immune from prosecution. If employees work on behalf of any large company, to ‘fraudulently deny’ say a ‘broad’ patent, they could be held liable in either a state or federal court. Felonies are not subject to qualified immunity!


  • [Avatar for George]
    September 21, 2022 12:30 pm

    @ anon

    I think it is possible if State laws or constitutions have been violated (say fraud or State RICO laws). The Federal government cannot violate State laws or constitutions (unless federal laws supersede the state laws). States have many more laws than the federal government. State constitutions ‘cannot be violated by the federal government’ . . . ergo all the new anti-abortion laws. The federal government is powerless to do anything about them (without new federal laws) and existing federal law (or sovereign immunity) cannot be used to thwart them. Even federal employees living in those states ‘must comply’ with them!


    Bad Faith (i.e. corruption, intentional ‘sabotage’, denial of constitutional property rights, etc.)

    “If a plaintiff can demonstrate that the government’s action was done in bad faith, the plaintiff can receive damages despite sovereign immunity. Typically if a party can demonstrate that the government intentionally acted wrongly with the sole purpose of causing damages, that party can recover for injury or economic losses. For example, if access lanes to a major bridge are closed for repair and the closure results in severe traffic congestion, the action was in good faith and the state could not be sued. However, if, as in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal, the lanes were closed in retaliation against a mayor who declined to support a politician’s campaign, with the explicit purpose of causing traffic jams, such lawsuits could proceed.”

    It costs a lot to get a patent & that established a ‘contract’ between the government and the inventor!

    “By way of the Tucker Act, certain claims of monetary damages against the United States are exempt from sovereign immunity. These cases are heard by the United States Court of Federal Claims, or, for cases involving less than ten thousand dollars, a district court has concurrent jurisdiction.”

    You can always sue the government and its employees for violating your constitutional rights, including violating state constitutions! That could include your right to obtain a patent as ‘property’ and your right to have that ‘patent respected’ and to be provided with protection of ‘exclusivity’ (as clearly stated in the Constitution).

    Does the USPTO use contractors? They’re not necessarily protected:

    Maybe learn a little more & ‘try harder’ to come up with ways to sue the PTO? At some point they have to be able to be held accountable too – especially in cases of fraud or cover-up (as in the case of the ‘super-secret’ SAWS program). The USPTO is not unaccountable to the U.S. Constitution! It cannot commit felonies or ‘engage in cover-ups’ of those felonies.

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 21, 2022 11:58 am

    After finding only my son owned 4446 Bonnie Brae my home……., I know now why the contracts were stopped for years trying to get me to lose this place and go back to Millington. INSTEAD OF TYPING IT OUT …TO THIS PAGE TO SHARE WITH YOU, SO YOU KNOW I HAVE THE PROOF I WAS CLAIMED DECEASED AS SARAH….THEN PUFF .. THEY WERE GONE. MY SON AS USUAL WORKING HIS HACKER SKILLS. BUT I HAVE IT COPIED ALL OVER.

  • [Avatar for sarah mcpherson]
    sarah mcpherson
    September 21, 2022 08:16 am

    And now that I know a criminally controlled guardian ad litem is at play that I was never a party to. .. I wonder if BRENDA WARWICK-TANOUS- LOLOLOL EGAN HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS FALSE SITUATION. THAT IS GOING TO BE EASY PEASY.

  • [Avatar for concerned]
    September 21, 2022 06:15 am

    My attorney tells me that the USPTO and PTAB are batting 100% at the CAFC on s101 matters.

    When the CAFC wrote that my evidence argument was not preserved on appeal, therefore it was not addressed, it was very interesting. The blue brief only contained the word “evidence” 79 times.

    Most every response to the USPTO in the Official Record complained about the evidence not being considered (no rebuttal or response) and so did arguments to the PTAB (no rebuttal or response).

    Frankly, I would be shocked if the USPTO and PTAB were NOT batting 100%.

    For our efforts, I get the pleasure of having my precedential case used against other inventors to destroy their inventions, which has already happened. Is the preceding what the constitution had in mind?

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    September 20, 2022 10:30 pm

    ” … any improper bias or abuse by PTAB officials can be guarded against by the judicial branch …”


    Since the passage of the AIA (America Invalidates Act), the CAFC has abdicated its Constitutional duty and responsibility to guard against bias and abuse by the PTAB and Patent Office.


    The fix is in.

    Mr. Hoyle and B.E. Tech were robbed.


  • [Avatar for anon]
    September 20, 2022 07:57 pm

    Sovereign immunity absolutely bars suits in state court against the federal government, you lunatic. Please follow your own advice and let us know how it goes.

  • [Avatar for George]
    September 20, 2022 06:56 pm

    Time to start taking these cases to STATE courts, charging the federal government & the PTO & its employees with ‘fraud’ & ‘conspiracy to commit a fraud’, under State Rico charges! Let’s see them deal with THAT!

    Sovereign immunity doesn’t apply to the federal government & its employees – in state court! Each state has their own laws & interpretations of what the federal government, their agencies & employees can do . . . and CAN’T do! That’s how to finally ‘get them’ Hoyle, et al.

    Let’s start suing the USPTO in multiple STATE courts for ‘unfair business practices, fraud, RICO, collusion/conspiracy, etc.). Let’s see them defend themselves in those courts! They can’t use their usual ‘winning arguments’ there! There, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck . . . it’s a duck (i.e. fraud, etc.)! Even the federal government can be held liable for all losses due to that! And that could easily be in the BILLIONS, especially if there are class actions!

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.