Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05002/USCOURTS-ca13-15-05002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Hedman Clark
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES HEDMAN CLARK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5002 

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:11-cv-00010-VJW, Judge Victor J. Wolski.

______________________ 

Decided: November 25, 2015

______________________ 

JAMES HEDMAN CLARK, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for appellee. Also represented by JOHN 

J. FARGO, BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, PLAGER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2015
2 CLARK v. US

PER CURIAM

James Clark owns a federally registered copyright on

a pamphlet describing a program that he developed for 

modifying student behavior. He filed for a patent on his 

program but abandoned the application. He brought the 

present action against the United States in the Court of 

Federal Claims, alleging, among other things, that the 

government had infringed his copyright and patent rights 

in the program and had violated a secrecy order imposed 

on his patent application. The Court of Federal Claims 

dismissed all of Mr. Clark’s claims. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Clark worked as a probationary teacher in St. 

Louis, Missouri, from October 2003 until at least the end 

of the 2004–2005 school year. In the spring of 2004, he

developed a program for modifying student behavior, in 

particular the behavior of students at Roosevelt Ninth 

Grade Learning Center, which he titled the Out of Area 

Program. In addition to describing how to implement the 

Program, a pamphlet describing the Program contains 

multiple exhibits, including a model Hall Pass. Mr. Clark 

obtained federal copyright registration on the Program 

pamphlet on April 22, 2005. Copyright Registration No. 

TX0006164501. He applied for a patent on the Program

in June 2005, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/153,118, but 

abandoned the application in October 2010.

On May 22, 2006, Mr. Clark filed a complaint in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Missouri against several individuals, the St. Louis Board 

of Education, and the St. Louis Public School District, 

alleging, among other things, patent infringement and 

copyright infringement. Clark v. Crues, No. 4:05-CV1344, 2007 WL 906702, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2007). 

The district court dismissed the patent-infringement 

claims because Mr. Clark had not shown the existence of 

a patent covering the Program. Id. at *5. The court also 

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2015
CLARK v. US 3

dismissed the copyright-infringement claims because Mr.

Clark had not alleged that the defendants copied the 

expressive elements of the Program pamphlet, as opposed 

to merely using the ideas embodied in it. Id. at *7. On 

appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s judgment in 

its entirety. Clark v. Crues, 260 F. App’x 292, 295 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008).

On January 5, 2011, Mr. Clark sued the United States 

in the Court of Federal Claims on numerous grounds. 

The Court of Federal Claims grouped the causes of action

in Mr. Clark’s complaint into nine categories. Three of 

those categories are relevant here: Mr. Clark alleges that 

the United States has infringed what he believes to be his 

patent rights in the Program; has violated a secrecy order 

relating to his patent application; and has infringed his 

copyright on the Program.1

The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss all of Mr. Clark’s claims. The 

court dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction to the 

extent that they allege a violation committed by someone 

other than the United States. The court dismissed the

patent-infringement claims for lack of jurisdiction because 

Mr. Clark had not adequately alleged that he was the 

owner of any U.S. patent. It dismissed the secrecy-order 

claims for lack of jurisdiction, giving three reasons: Mr. 

Clark had not adequately alleged the existence of a relevant secrecy order; if such an order exists, Mr. Clark had 

not exhausted his administrative remedies as required 

under 35 U.S.C. § 183; and Mr. Clark may not originally 

challenge any secrecy order in the Court of Federal 

1 The other six categories of claims are: (1) illegal 

exaction claims, (2) tort claims, (3) claims under 19 U.S.C. 

§ 1337, (4) claims under Article I of the United States 

Constitution, (5) Fifth Amendment Takings claims, and 

(6) implied-in-fact contract claims. 

 

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/25/2015
4 CLARK v. US

Claims under § 183 because his patent application did not 

issue.

The court also dismissed Mr. Clark’s copyrightinfringement claims on multiple grounds. First, the court 

determined that most of Mr. Clark’s complaint fails to 

state a claim on which relief can be granted because his 

allegations concern the use of the ideas embodied in the 

Program, rather than the expression of those ideas. 

Second, the court determined that the complaint does not 

sufficiently allege federal-government involvement in the 

allegedly infringing acts. Last, the court concluded that

the allegedly infringing works were not sufficiently similar to the Program pamphlet to constitute copyright 

infringement.

On appeal, Mr. Clark requests that we vacate the 

2007 judgment of the Eastern District of Missouri and 

this court’s 2008 judgment affirming it. He also argues 

that the Court of Federal Claims erred in dismissing his 

patent-infringement claims, given the liberal pleading 

standards typically afforded to pro se litigants; erred in 

dismissing his secrecy-order claims because the Invention 

Secrecy Act is unconstitutional; and erred in dismissing 

his copyright-infringement claims because the Program is 

copyrightable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ grant 

of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or for failure 

to state a claim. Bay View Inc. v. United States, 278 F.3d 

1259, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A plaintiff fails to state a 

claim when the facts pleaded, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, do not “raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/25/2015
CLARK v. US 5

As a preliminary matter, Mr. Clark’s complaint makes 

allegations against not only the United States but also 

various private and state and local governmental entities. 

The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that it 

lacks jurisdiction over claims against entities other than 

the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(a), 1498(a).

Mr. Clark’s request that we vacate our 2008 judgment

and the 2007 judgment of the Eastern District of Missouri

fails. Mr. Clark petitioned for rehearing of our 2008 

judgment, and on February 12, 2008, we denied that 

petition. The 2007 and 2008 judgments are not collaterally reviewable by us now or by the Court of Federal 

Claims. Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, 632 F.3d 

1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vereda, Ltda. v. United 

States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Joshua v. 

United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“the 

Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to 

review the decisions of district courts”). 

As to his patent-infringement claims, Mr. Clark does 

not directly challenge the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear those claims. 

Instead, Mr. Clark challenges the jurisdiction of the 

Eastern District of Missouri to hear his patentinfringement claims, as well as this court’s jurisdiction to 

review the district court’s judgment. As discussed above, 

this court does not review our 2008 judgment or the 2007 

judgment of the Eastern District of Missouri. 

To the extent that Mr. Clark does challenge the Court 

of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his patent-infringement 

claims, the challenge must fail: the court did not err in 

dismissing his claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of 

Federal Claims has jurisdiction over actions against the 

United States by an owner of a U.S. patent when the 

government uses or makes without authorization “an 

invention described in and covered by a patent of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Mr. Clark’s applicaCase: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/25/2015
6 CLARK v. US

tion to patent the Program was abandoned, and Mr. Clark 

has not identified an issued patent covering the Program. 

See Martin v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 627, 632 (2011) 

(“section 1498 does not grant the Court of Federal Claims 

jurisdiction over a claim for alleged infringement of an 

unissued patent”); cf. Amgen, Inc. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 

98 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“of course suit can

not be brought for infringement of a patent that has not 

issued”).

The Court of Federal Claims also correctly dismissed 

Mr. Clark’s claims that the government violated a secrecy

order in relation to his patent application. The Invention 

Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 181–88, provides two routes for 

seeking compensation for damage caused by the United 

States’ imposition of a secrecy order concerning a patent 

application: (1) for a non-issued patent, applying to the 

head of the department or agency that issued the secrecy 

order for a settlement to compensate the applicant for any 

loss, the settlement challengeable in the Court of Federal 

Claims or a federal district court; and (2) for an issued 

patent, filing a suit in the Court of Federal Claims for just 

compensation. 35 U.S.C. § 183. Mr. Clark does not own 

an issued patent, and this appeal does not arise from an 

agency settlement concerning a secrecy order imposed on 

Mr. Clark’s patent application. Thus, the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr. Clark’s secrecyorder claims.2

2 Mr. Clark did not raise in the Court of Federal

Claims his new contention that the Invention Secrecy Act 

is unconstitutional—or explain here on what basis such a 

claim could have been within that court’s limited jurisdiction. Similarly, he did not raise in the Court of Federal 

Claims his new contention that the United States violated 

the Fifth Amendment by ordering that his patent applica-

 

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/25/2015
CLARK v. US 7

As to his copyright-infringement claims, Mr. Clark 

argues that the United States infringed his copyright by

preparing works derivative of the Program. In particular, 

he argues that his copyright registration for the Program 

establishes a prima facie case for the validity of the 

Program’s copyright and that the Program is not an idea 

but is instead copyrightable subject matter. 

The Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed Mr. 

Clark’s claims of copyright infringement. Although Mr. 

Clark owns a copyright on the Program pamphlet, that is 

not enough to plausibly allege a claim for copyright infringement. Mr. Clark must also plausibly allege facts 

indicating that someone other than himself—someone for 

whose actions the United States is liable under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1498(b)—copied elements of the Program pamphlet 

protectable under the Copyright Act. Feist Publications, 

Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). He 

has not done so.

His complaint alleges that contractors and subcontractors of the United States used the ideas embodied 

in the Program, which are not entitled to copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Clark, 260 F. App’x at 293–94. 

Read liberally, the complaint also can be understood to 

allege that state and local officials copied some expressive 

elements of the Program pamphlet, in particular the Hall 

Pass. See Complaint at ¶ 1629 (“Defendant Warmack . . . 

obtained said OOA Hall Pass and performed the expression thereof.”). But the complaint alleges only that the 

United States “act[ed] through” those state and local 

officials, see e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 1630–31, 1737, without

alleging any facts plausibly showing that those officials 

were acting for or with the authorization of the United 

States in the ways required for liability under § 1498(b). 

tion be kept secret without issuing a formal secrecy order—or explain the jurisdictional basis for such a claim.

 

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/25/2015
8 CLARK v. US

The Court of Federal Claims thus correctly dismissed Mr. 

Clark’s copyright-infringement allegations for failure to 

state a claim.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the Court of Federal Claims. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-5002 Document: 54-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/25/2015