Mikkilineni v. Stoll (Fed. Cir. 2011)

By Donald Zuhn --

Today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia of Plaintiff-Appellant M.R. Mikkilineni's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) requesting relief from a final judgment due to alleged fraud by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  In denying the motion, the Federal Circuit determined that Mr. Mikkilineni failed to show any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the USPTO.

In an earlier appeal arising from this case, the Federal Circuit dismissed Mr. Mikkilineni's challenge of the USPTO's Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions ("Interim Guidelines") (see "Mikkilineni v. Stoll (Fed. Cir. 2010)").  Mr. Mikkilineni had filed an application claiming "a method to fall-asleep by learning to use the process-algorithm in the brain [to] transform brain-neurons into a different[]physical state and produce melatonin and serotonin . . . without the use of drugs," and his claims were subsequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.  After responding to the Examiner's non-final rejection, Mr. Mikkilineni filed suit against the Commissioner of Patents, alleging that the USPTO violated 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)-(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") by failing to provide notice and an opportunity to comment with respect to the Interim Guidelines, on which the § 101 rejection was based.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case, finding that the Interim Guidelines are interpretive, rather than substantive, and were thus exempt from the notice and comment requirements of § 553 of the APA.

With respect to the instant appeal, Mr. Mikkilineni filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) with the District Court, arguing that the USPTO had obtained the previous judgment based on fraud.  The District Court denied the motion, holding that Mr. Mikkilineni failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, and instead was "merely repeat[ing] the legal arguments that he already presented."  The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that:

Mr. Mikkilineni fails to show any evidence of fraud.  Instead, he reargues the merits of the First Appeal and accuses the PTO of fraud and misrepresentation for disagreeing with his positions.

Mikkilineni v. Stoll (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Nonprecedential disposition
Panel: Chief Judge Rader and Circuit Judges Lourie and Moore
Per curiam opinion

Comments

[Who's crazy?]

I take it he both prosecuted the patent application and represented himself pro se.