NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JOHN STEPHEN SACCHETTI,

Plaintiff-Appellant

MARK JOSEPH SACCHETTI,

Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Third Party Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1484

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-01399-MBH, Judge Marian Blank 

Horn.

______________________ 

Decided: October 6, 2017 

______________________ 

 JOHN STEPHEN SACCHETTI, Lady Lake, FL, pro se.

 JENNA ELIZABETH MUNNELLY, Appellate Staff, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
2 SACCHETTI v. UNITED STATES

ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

CHAD A. READLER, GARY LEE HAUSKEN, SCOTT DAVID 

BOLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

LAWRENCE KASTEN, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie

LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for third party defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by SHANE E. OLAFSON. 

______________________ 

Before CHEN, PLAGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

John Sacchetti, proceeding pro se, appeals a decision 

from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims 

Court), dismissing his asserted patent infringement

claims (patent claims) and trademark infringement 

claims (trademark claims) against the United States (the 

government) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he brought 

the patent claims within the jurisdictional, six-year 

statute of limitations for all claims filed in the Claims 

Court and because the Claims Court has no jurisdiction to 

hear the trademark claims, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

John Sacchetti and Mark Sacchetti (collectively, the 

plaintiffs) filed suit against the government on November 

19, 2015, alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. More specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that 

the government has not compensated them for its use of 

two patents that they own concerning dual handset 

telephones—U.S. Design Patent No. 382,264 and U.S. 

Patent No. 5,604,798 (patents-in-suit)—and a trademark 

that is purportedly registered to Mark Sacchetti for the

phrase “The You Talk Two Phone.” 
SACCHETTI v. UNITED STATES 3

Upon receipt of the complaint, the government notified third-party government contractors that were implicated by the plaintiffs’ allegations, including CryaCom 

International, Inc. (CryaCom). CryaCom joined the case 

as a third-party defendant. Both the government and 

CryaCom (collectively, defendants) then moved to dismiss 

the case for, among other reasons, lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Specifically, they argued that the patent 

claims began to accrue more than six years before the 

plaintiffs filed their complaint, and thus the claims fell 

outside of the jurisdictional, six-year statute of limitations 

prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (2012), for claims brought 

in the Claims Court. As to the plaintiffs’ trademark 

claims, they argued that the Claims Court had no jurisdiction to hear such claims. 

The Claims Court agreed with the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of 

establishing subject matter jurisdiction over the patent 

and trademark claims. In construing the plaintiffs’ 

complaint liberally, the Claims Court found that their 

patent claims began to accrue before November 19, 

2009—the critical date for jurisdictional purposes—and 

held that only United States District Courts could entertain the trademark claims. 

John Sacchetti now appeals the Claims Court’s conclusions.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3) (2012). 

 

1 Mark Sacchetti passed away during the Claims 

Court proceedings, and although John Sacchetti twice 

sought to have him substituted by another party, John 

Sacchetti’s efforts were rejected by the Claims Court. In 

light of these circumstances, Mark Sacchetti had to be 

dismissed from the case, leaving only John Sacchetti to 

appeal any adverse rulings from the Claims Court. See R. 
4 SACCHETTI v. UNITED STATES

DISCUSSION

A party must establish the Claims Court’s jurisdiction 

by a preponderance of the evidence. E.g., Acevedo v. 

United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 390 (2016) (citing Trusted Integration, 

Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 

2011)). This remains so even as we liberally construe a 

pro se party’s pleadings. See, e.g., Henke v. United States, 

60 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We review a Claims 

Court’s decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction de novo. E.g., Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United 

States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Fid. & 

Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 

1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We conclude after liberally 

reading John Sacchetti’s informal briefing that the Claims 

Court did not err in dismissing his patent and trademark 

claims. 

28 U.S.C. § 2501 imposes a six-year statute of limitations on any causes of action filed in the Claims Court. 

Id. (“Every claim of which the [Claims Court] has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed 

within six years after such claim first accrues.”). This 

statute of limitations is a jurisdictional limit on the 

authority of the Claims Court. See Caguas Cent. Fed. 

Sav. Bank v. United States, 215 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 

2000) (citing Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. United 

States, 855 F.2d 1573, 1576–77 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). And it 

must be “strictly construed.” MacLean v. United States,

454 F.3d 1334, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Hopland, 

855 F.2d at 1576–77). 

The Claims Court understood John Sacchetti to be 

claiming that he was entitled to compensation under 28 

 

Fed. Cl. 25. Moreover, John Sacchetti does not appeal the 

Claims Court’s decision to deny substitution. 
SACCHETTI v. UNITED STATES 5

U.S.C. § 1498 on the ground that the government was 

infringing his patents. Appx. at 13-14. The government 

agrees, and notes that this action arose pursuant to 

Section 1498 and the Lanham Act. Appellee Br. at 1. 

John Sacchetti has not expressed a different view. 

A cause of action arises for the government’s unauthorized use of a patent owner’s claimed invention under 

28 U.S.C. § 1498 (2012). See id. § 1498(a) (“Whenever an 

invention described in and covered by a patent of the 

United States is used or manufactured by or for the 

United States without license of the owner thereof or 

lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s 

remedy shall be by action against the United States in the 

[Claims Court] for the recovery of his reasonable and 

entire compensation for such use and manufacture.”). 

Importantly, the jurisdictional clock for a § 1498 action begins to run when the government first uses the 

claimed invention without authorization and that specific

use is not considered continuous in nature for jurisdictional purposes. See Starobin v. United States, 662 F.2d 

747, 750 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (“[T]o hold that every use of a 

patented item during the lifespan of a patent marks the 

accrual of a new cause of action within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. [§] 2501 ‘[w]ould create a most difficult situation in 

the accounting stage of patent infringement suits, since it 

would create a possibility of recovery for unauthorized use 

open for an indefinite period on all patented items possessed by the defendant.’” (quoting Regent Jack Mfg. Co. 

v. United States, 337 F.2d 649, 651 (Ct. Cl. 1964))); see 

also Hyde v. United States, 336 F. App’x 996, 998 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009); Bissell v. United States, 41 F. App’x 414, 416 

(Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Here, the Claims Court found that all allegations concerning the government’s first unauthorized use of the 

patents-in-suit began before November 19, 2009. See

Appx. at 16–17. Our review of the record also reveals that 
6 SACCHETTI v. UNITED STATES

John Sacchetti has not alleged that a purportedly infringing product was first used by or for the government within the six-year statute of limitations. The Claims Court, 

therefore, properly dismissed the patent claims for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

Finally, as to the trademark claims, the Claims Court 

correctly held that those claims, if they can be asserted at 

all, must be brought in a United States District Court. Id.

at 18 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) (2012)); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1491–1509 (2012) (setting forth Claims Court’s jurisdiction). Because the Claims Court is not a court of 

competent jurisdiction for the trademark claims, it correctly dismissed these claims for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction as well. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Claims 

Court’s decision to dismiss John Sacchetti’s patent and 

trademark claims.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs.