Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01113/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01113-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 502
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

PEDRO N. IBANEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1113

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00767-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.

______________________

Decided: December 12, 2024

______________________

PEDRO N. IBANEZ, Temecula, CA, pro se.

 CONRAD JOSEPH DEWITTE, JR., Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, BRIAN M. BOYNTON.

 ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2024
2 IBANEZ v. US

Pedro Ibanez appeals from a decision of the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims (“the Claims Court”) dismissing his

copyright infringement claims sua sponte pursuant to 

Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims

(“RCFC”) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ibanez v. 

United States, No. 23-767, 2023 WL 4715176 (Fed. Cl. July,

24 2023) (“Decision”).

For the following reasons, we affirm that dismissal, but 

we do so on the ground that Ibanez failed to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted under RCFC 12(b)(6).

BACKGROUND

Ibanez filed a complaint against the United States 

(“the government”), alleging copyright infringement. See

S.A. 1005–08.

1 Specifically, Ibanez alleges that “[s]ince 

2009 [the] US Government has copied and implemented 

unique information” from his written work entitled “NO 

TAXES NO POVERTY STRONG GOVERNMENT” (“1998 

Book”). S.A. 1006. He contends that the government’s use 

of his work “was a substantial factor in the successful exit 

of the country from the Pandemic of 2020–2021.” Id.

Ibanez attached copies of two government works with 

his complaint: a partial version of a 2021 Monetary Policy 

Report published by the Federal Reserve (“2021 Report”), 

see S.A. 1040–52, and a 2022 speech by the Chairman of 

the Federal Reserve (“2022 Speech”). S.A. 1073–76. Ibanez 

does not address either government work in his complaint, 

let alone allege that either work contains material copied

from his 1998 Book. See S.A. 1005–08.

The Claims Court, upon review of the complaint and its 

corresponding attachments, issued an order for Ibanez “TO 

SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed 

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix 

included with Defendant-Appellee’s informal brief.

Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2024
IBANEZ v. US 3

pursuant to RCFC 12(h)(3).” S.A. 1095. Ibanez responded 

by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which generally provides the 

Claims Court with jurisdiction over copyright infringement 

claims made against the government. S.A. 1097–1101. 

The Claims Court then determined that “[t]he allegations 

asserted in the Complaint—that the Government ‘copied 

and implemented unique information’ from [Ibanez]’s 

copywritten work, which ‘was a substantial factor in the 

successful exit of the country from the Pandemic of 2020–

2021’—fall into the category of ‘frivolous’ or ‘clearly 

baseless.’” Decision, at *1 (citations omitted). The Claims 

Court therefore dismissed the claims for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(h)(3) because “claims 

supported by facts that are ‘delusional,’ ‘clearly baseless,’

or ‘rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly 

incredible’” cannot fall within the Claims Court’s

jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed. 

Cl. 349, 356 (2011)).

Ibanez filed a motion for reconsideration, see S.A. 1103,

which was denied. S.A. 1004. Ibanez timely appealed. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the Claims Court’s legal conclusions, such 

as a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, de 

novo. Am. Bankers Ass’n v. United States, 932 F.3d 1375, 

1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted 

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In 

reviewing a dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6), “we must 

accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw 

all reasonable inferences in [the appellant’s] favor.” Boyle 

v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

Although pleadings must be construed liberally for pro se

litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007),

Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2024
4 IBANEZ v. US

“regardless of whether the plaintiff is proceeding pro se or 

is represented by counsel, conclusory allegations or legal 

conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not 

suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” McZeal v. Sprint 

Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (cleaned 

up).

To state a plausible claim of copyright infringement, a 

complaint must adequately allege: “(1) ownership of a valid 

copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the 

work that are original.” Gaylord v. United States, 595 F.3d 

1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Feist 

Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 

(1991)).

Here, Ibanez has plausibly alleged ownership of a valid 

copyright. He provided, with his complaint, a copy of a 

certification of registration for the 1998 Book from the U.S. 

Copyright Office. S.A. 1010–11. Ibanez has not, however,

plausibly alleged any actual “copying” of the 1998 Book. He

only makes the conclusory allegation that the government 

has copied the 1998 Book but does not provide any factual 

support for that allegation. See S.A. 1006. Specifically, 

Ibanez does not identify what government works allegedly 

infringe, how such works allegedly infringe, or who 

committed the alleged infringement. Id. The only 

government works that Ibanez provided were a 2021 

Report (S.A. 1040–52) and a 2022 Speech (S.A. 1073–76), 

but even so, Ibanez does not contend that either work

contains material copied from the 1998 Book. Id. at 1006–

08, 1070–72.

In fact, Ibanez admits that the government did not 

reproduce or distribute any copies of any part of the 1998 

Book or otherwise violate any of his exclusive rights as the 

1998 Book’s copyright owner. See S.A. 1072 (“Plaintiff and 

Defendant words are different but intended Meaning and

Expression is REASONABLY SIMILAR”). Instead, Ibanez 

merely alleges that the government implemented the ideas

Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2024
IBANEZ v. US 5

expressed in his 1998 Book. See S.A. 1006 (alleging that 

the government “implemented unique information” from 

the 1998 Book, including “How to manipulate the money 

supply without incurring Hyperinflation” and how to 

“Print and Distribute Unlimited money”). Although 

copyright protection extends to literary works, 17 U.S.C. 

§ 102(a), it does not extend to the facts and ideas expressed 

in such copyrighted work. Id. § 102(b); see Boyle, 200 F.3d 

at 1373 (“Copyright protection does not extend to ideas 

expressed in a copyrighted work.”). Thus, even if the 

government’s actions were modeled after the ideas 

expressed in Ibanez’s 1998 Book, that would not affect any 

claim of copyright infringement. Id. Ibanez’s allegations 

therefore cannot support a claim for relief under 

RCFC 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION

Ibanez failed to state a claim for relief under 

RCFC 12(b)(6), and thus the trial court correctly 

determined that Ibanez’s claims should be dismissed. We 

have considered Ibanez’s remaining arguments and find 

them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Claims Court’s

decision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-1113 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 12/12/2024