UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STANLEY A. SANSONE ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02470 (UNA) ) UNITED STATES PATENT ) AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, ECF

No. 1, amended complaint, ECF No. 3, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case for the

reasons explained below.

Plaintiff, a resident of Houston, Texas, has filed a complaint against the United States

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and the USPTO’s Director. He seeks reexamination of

a final decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that affirmed the USPTO’s denial

of Plaintiff’s petition seeking patentability on his invention. He also seeks damages arising from

that denial.

First, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff has two available

avenues to challenge a PTAB decision; he may either appeal the decision directly to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under

, or he may file a civil action

to obtain a patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under

. Plaintiff has no recourse in this Court.

1 Second, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages, he has failed to state a claim. Plaintiff

fundamentally predicates his claim for damages on criminal statutes, namely, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–

242, 2387. However, bare federal criminal statutes, such as those, “have no corresponding private

right of action.” Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc.,

(D.D.C. 1994) (collecting

cases); see Crosby v. Catret,

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (no private

right of action under §§ 241–242); Johnson v. D.C. Crim. Just. Act,

, 662 (D.C.

Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (same); Brooks v. Army 1st Operations Comm., No. 23-cv-00189,

, at 1 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2023) (same) (collecting cases); Mirarchi v. Exec. Branch of

Gov’t,

, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2023) (no private right of action under § 2387)

(collecting cases including Barrett v. Biden, No. 22-2823,

, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct.

25, 2022); Prunte v. Univ. Music Grp.,

(D.D.C. 2007)). Even if those

statutes provided a cause of action, they bear no relevance to the facts giving rise to this case.

Finally, Plaintiff broadly alleges that the USPTO violated his due process rights under the

14th Amendment by repeatedly rejecting his application, which he contends contravenes the

“special status” originally afforded his application by the agency. Put simply, Plaintiff fails to

articulate adequately the deprivation of a protected right. “Events may not have unfolded as

Plaintiff wished, but his dissatisfaction . . . [does] not form a basis for a due process violation.”

Melton v. District of Columbia,

(D.D.C. 2015). “[F]ederal court

jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal

question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.” Johnson v. Robinson,

(D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Bilal v. Kaplan,

(8th Cir. 1990) (per

curiam)). Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to federal government, its

agencies, or its officials. See Bolling v. Sharpe,

(1954). 2 For all of these reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: October 25, 2023 ___________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

3