Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03172/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03172-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHELLE K. LEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03172-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 22

Plaintiff Security People, Inc. filed this lawsuit on July 8, 2015 against Michelle K. Lee, in 

her capacity as Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), and Ojmar US, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). Dkt. 

No. 1. The lawsuit alleges a single count positing the unconstitutionality of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19, 

contending that the PTAB’s inter partes review proceedings violate Article III separation of 

powers principles and the right to have patent validity issues determined by a jury. 

In light of the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard 

Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss. MCM Portfolio

squarely rejected the argument that inter partes review violates Article III. See id. at 1292. The 

decision further held that “[b]ecause patent rights are public rights, and their validity susceptible to 

review by an administrative agency, the Seventh Amendment poses no barrier to agency 

adjudication without a jury.” Id. at 1293. 

Finding that the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim to relief and that further 

amendment of the pleadings would be futile, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss with 

prejudice. See Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(holding dismissal is appropriate where “where there is no cognizable legal theory” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and 

Case 4:15-cv-03172-HSG Document 45 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3/25/2016

Case 4:15-cv-03172-HSG Document 45 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 2