NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1210

___________ J OH N C . ( J AC K) BO YLE, A p p e l l a n t

v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; U. S . P ATE NT AND TRADEM ARK OFF I CE

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 08- cv- 05700) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D enni s M . C avana ugh

___________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t9, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antJ ohn C . B oy l e appe al s an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant i ng the2

d ef en d an ts – the U n it ed S tat es o f A m erica a n d U n it ed S tat es P aten t and T rad em ark O ffi ce – sum m aryj ud gm ent on B oy l e’s cl ai m of n egli gen ce. F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I n 2006, B oy l e fi l ed a pa t enti nfr i ngementcas e i n U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor the D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyagai ns tM ol s on C oor s B r ew i ng C om panyand Pr i ce W at erhous e C ooper s , L L P, s eeki ng t o enfor ce U . S. Pat entN o. 6, 073, 116 ( “B oy l e’ s ‘ 116 Pat ent ”) . E nt i t l ed “Cros s fund I nves t m entPr oces s , ” B oy l e’ s ‘ 116 Pat enti nvol ves pr oces s es and met hods , w hi ch ca n be us ed byi nves t or s t o obt ai n m utual funds i n a for ei gn curr encyand avoi d i ni t i al curr encyconver s i on cos t s bys w appi ng r i ght s w i t h a w i l l i ng co- i nves t ori n anothercountr y . B oy l e’ s pat enti nfr i ngementact i on conce r ned a tr a n s a c tio n m a d e in c o n n e c tio n w ith M o ls o n ’s p u rc h a s e in 2 0 0 2 o f B a s s B re w e rs , a U n it ed K ing d o m b rew er (“the C arli n g ac q u isi ti o n ”). Se e B o y le v. M o lson C o o rs B r ew i ng C o. , 2007 W L 2688908 ( D . N . J . Sept ember11, 2007) . D ur i ng the cour s e of the l i t i gat i on, B oy l e r eques t ed a c er t i fi ed copyof hi s pat entfi l e fr om the Pat entand T r ademar k O ffi ce ( “U SPT O ”) forus e i n t he ca s e. T he U SPT O i n r es pons e pr ovi ded B o y le w ith a c e rt if

ie d c o p yo f

th e f ile f o r t h e ‘1 1 6 P a te n t, a n d s u b s e q u e n t c e rt if ie d c o p ie s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts in th e 2 0 0 6 c a se m o v e d f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, an d a ttac h e d e x h ib its to the mot i on, i ncl udi ng B oy l e’ s or i gi nal pat entappl i cat i on. T hator i gi nal appl i cat i on cont ai ned a tw o- page w r i t t en des cr i pt i on of hi s cr os s - fund i nves t m entpr oces s and t en p a g e s o f d ra w in g s b u t n o c o m p u te r c o d e .“ T h e d o c trin e o f e q u iv a len ts a llo w s a p lain tiff to e sta b lish .. . tha t a c laim e lem e n t, 1 though notl i t er al l ypr es ent , i s nevert hel es s m etbydemonstr at i ng thatthe mi s s i ng el ement h a s b e e n re p lac e d b ya stru c tu re th a t p e rf o rm s th e sa m e f

u n c tio n in th e sa m e w a yto achi eve the s ame r es ul tas t he cl ai m el ementi n t he pat ent ed devi ce. ” I d. at* 5 ( ci t i ng W arn er-Jen k inso n C o . v . H il ton D av is C h em . C o . , 5 2 0 U . S . 1 7 , 3 5 (19 9 7 ). 3 T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o t he def endant s M ol s on and Pr i ce W a te rh o u s e in th e 2 0 0 6 a c tio n , c o n c lu d in g th a t th e yd id n o t in f ri n g e B o y le ’s ‘1 1 6 P a te n t. S ee id. at* 7 (“T h e a ll eg ed tr an sac ti o n d id n o t uti li ze an ything that ap p roa ch es B o y le’s cl ai m ed i nvent i on. ”) . T he courtdet erm i ned thateac h cl ai m of pat ent abl e pr oces s es i n t he

‘ 116 Pat enti ncl uded the expr es s l i m i t at i on of i nves t m enti n “mut ual funds , ” butthe C a rl in g a c q u is itio n d id n o t u s e m u tu a l f u n d s o r a n yo th e r i n v e s tm e n t v e h ic le . S e e id . T he courtfur t herdet erm i ned thatt he doctr i ne of e qui val ent s di d notappl y . I n t he 1 al t ernat i ve, t he courtdet erm i ned thatthe pat entw as i nval i d forw antof i nvent i on and as ant i ci pat ed bypr i orar t . I d. at* 8 ( B oy l e di d noti nventthe “f i xed- fi xed” c urr encys w ap us ed i n the C ar l i ng acqui s i t i on) . I n addi t i on, al t hough B oy l e ar gued ats om e s ubs equent p o in t th a t h e a ttem p ted to in c o rp o ra te a c o m p u ter c o d e in to h is a p p lica tio n , h is a ttem p ts to am en d o r i n clud e n ew m att er w ere inv ali d u n d er 3 5 U . S . C . § 1 3 2 (a). S ee id. T h e c o u rt hel d thatthe cl ai m s of the ‘ 116 pat entw er e i nval i d unders ect i on 132( a) beca us e they nece s s ar i l yr el i ed on new m att erfors uppor tthatw as added a ft erthe appl i cat i on w as i ni t i al l yfi l ed. See i d. B oy l e appe al ed, buthi s appea l w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el yfi l ed bythe U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Feder al C i r cui t . B oy l e had f i l ed a doc um entent i t l ed4

“I nt entt o A ppeal ” i n t he di s t r i ctcour tthr ee da y s aft erthe dea dl i ne forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l , Fed. R . A pp. Pr o. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( pr ovi di ng forthi r t ydayappea l per i od) . M uch l at er h e f iled a n a c tu a l n o tice o f

a p p e a l. T h e F e d e ra l C irc u it h e ld th a t, ev e n if th e “ In ten t to Ap p e a l ” d o c u me n twa s c o n s t ru e d a s a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , i twa s n o tf

i l e d wi t h i n th e t i me l i m i tand thus t he appe al w as unt i m el yfi l ed. Fol l ow i ng t he di s m i s s al of hi s pat enti nfr i ngementcas e, B oy l e fi l ed an admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m undert he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct( “FT C A ”) , 28 U . S. C . § 2671, et s eq. , w i th t he Pat entand Tra demar k O ffi ce. B oy l e as s ert ed thatthe ce r t i fi ed copy , and su b se q u e n t ce rtifie d c o p ies , su p p lied to h im d u rin g th e p a ten t in f rin g e m e n t li tig a tio n d id notcont ai n a comput ercode thathe pr evi ous l yhad s ubm i t t ed fori ncl us i on i n t he pat ent fi l e. B oy l e ar gued thatt he omi s s i on of the comput ercode oc curr ed due t o t he negl i gence o f th e U S P T O a n d c a u s e d h im to lo s e h is c a s e . B o y le s o u g h t $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s . T he U SPT O deni ed the cl ai m i n i t s ent i r ety , and the i ns t antact i on fi l ed i n N ew J er s ey fede r al di s t r i ctcourtfol l ow ed. T he U ST PO and U ni t ed St at es m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton t he negl i gence c laim , as se rtin g th a t B o y le c o u ld n o t es tab lish a n e c e ss a rye lem e n t o f h is c laim , n a m e ly thatthe al l eged f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h a ful l pat entfi l e ca us ed hi m i nj ury . T he D istric t C o u rt a g re e d , an d g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e d e f e n d a n ts. A s a th re sh o ld m at t er , t he courtdet erm i ned thatB oy l e w as col l at er al l yes t opped fr om r el i t i gat i ng the i s s ues i n hi s pat enti nfr i ngementcas e. See D avi s v. U . S. St eel Suppl y , 688 F. 2d 166, 174B oy l e fi r s tfi l ed fort he pat enti n ques t i on on M ar ch 7, 1997. 2 5 ( 3d C i r . 1982) . See al s o A l l en v. C urr y , 449 U . S. 90, 94 ( 1980) . T he courtthen r eas oned thati thad pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned i n the pat enti nfr i ngementcas e thatthe cha l l enged tr ans act i on w as qual i t at i vel ydi ffe r entthan thos e des cr i bed i n t he ‘ 116 pat ent , and thus the ‘ 116 Pat entw as noti nfr i nged. A l l of the cl ai m s i n t he ‘ 116 Pat entr equi r ed i nves t m enti n m utual funds , butt he al l egedl yi nfr i ngi ng tr ans act i on di d notus e mut ual funds oranyot heri nves t m entvehi cl e. T her efor e, anynegl i gence on t he partof the U ST PO i n fai l i ng t o pr ovi de B oy l e w i t h a ful l and compl et e copyof the fi l e coul d not have c aus ed hi m t o l os e hi s cas e. I n t he al t ernat i ve, the courthad det erm i ned i n t he 2006 cas e thatthe pat entw as unenfor cea bl e as i nval i d; the mul t i s t age tr ans act i on us ed i n t he C ar l i ng acqui s i t i on, i n w hi ch a c ur r encys w ap w as us ed t o hedge f or ei gn curr ency fl uctuat i on r i s ks , w as publ i c know l edge l ong befor e M ar ch 7, 1996. I n l i ghtof the 2 i nval i di tyof B oy l e’ s pat entcl ai m s cover i ng the tr ans act i on ati s s ue, no al l eged ne gl i gence on t he partof the U ST PO coul d have c aus ed hi m t o l os e hi s cas e. B oy l e appe al s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. B oy l e cont ends on appea l t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the “f act s ” of U ST PO ’ s dutyand cl earbr eac h of that d u ty , se e A p p e llan t’s B rie f , at 3 , an d th u s th e c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t d e c isio n is u n d e rm in e d . B o y le a ss e rts:

T he o pini on . . . fai l s t o st at e t hat 3 “cert i fi ed co pies ” w ere m i ssi ng atl east 72 pages , i ncl udi ng t he code , w hen compar ed w i t h t he 1s tcopy , w hi ch w as d estroy ed b ythe d ef

en d an ts, w h ich th e m ag istrate jud g e f o rce d [m e] to turnR u le 5 6 (c ) w a s a m e n d e d e f f e c tiv e D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 , an d c o n tin u e s to p ro v id e th a t: 3 “T h e jud g m en t sou g h t sho u ld b e re n d ere d if th e p lead ing s, the d isco v eryan d d iscl o su re m at er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. Pr o. 5 6 (c)(2). 6

over , des pi t e obj ect i ons thatthe copyw as w or k m at t er , and [I ] pai d $225 forthe copy. . . . T he opi ni on al s o fai l s t o s how thatthe U ST PO . . . coul d not expl ai n [the code ’ s ] abs ence orthe mi s s i ng pages betw een the 1s tand s ubs equentcopi es . . . . T her e i s s o m uch mi s s i ng fr om the fi l e bes i des the code, t hatcl ear l ynegl i gence i s demanded forfai l i ng t o hal tcert i fy i ng c o p ies th e U S T P O k n e w w a s m isle a d in g a n d n o n -f a c tu a l. A ppel l ant ’ s I nform al B r i ef, at4- 5. I n addi t i on t o ar gui ng thats um m aryj udgm entw as not pr oper , B oy l e ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as bi as ed and “ us ed a doc um enti n t he o ri g in a l c a s e th a t w a s to ta lly f a ls e a n d n o n -r e f

le c tiv e o f

th e a c tu a l f

ile h is to ry.” Id . a t 6 -7 . I n addi t i on, B oy l e cont ends i n hi s br i ef on a ppeal thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on in th e p a te n t in f

ri n g e m e n t a c tio n c o n c e rn in g th e in v a lid ity o f th e ‘1 1 6 P a te n t w a s f

la w e d . See i d. at7- 8. W e w ill a f

f irm . O u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t is pl enaryand w e mustaff i r m i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand the movi ng pa r tyi s e nt i t l e d t o j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . Se e Cel ot e x Corp. v. Catr e t t , 47 7 U. S. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2 -23 (19 8 6 ); F ed . R . C iv. Pro . 5 6 (c) (ef fe cti v e thro u g h N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ). A 3 g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t is o n e th a t c o u ld c h a n g e th e o u tc o m e o f th e litig a tio n . A nder s on v. L i bert yL obby , I nc. , 477 U . S. 242, 247 ( 1986) . “Exceptforcert ai n ar eas of t or tl aw s peci fi cal l yexcl uded, t he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ctw as enac t ed t o pr ovi de a7

j udi ci al r emedyfort hos e w ho s uffe ri nj uryordamage as a r es ul tof the negl i gence or m i s conductof an e m pl oy ee of t he U ni t ed St at es . ” G i bs on v. U ni t ed St at es , 457 F. 2d 1391, 1394 ( 3d C i r . 1972) . I n bot h t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a and N ew J er s ey , w her e the al l eged neg l i gen tactcou l d o nlyhav e occu rr ed, see 28 U . S . C . § 2 67 4, t o est abli sh n e g lig e n c e a p la in tif

f “ m u s t p ro v e a d u ty o f

c a re o w e d b yth e d e f

e n d a n t to th e p la in tif

f , a br eac h of thatdut ybyt he def endant , and damage t o t he i nt er es t s of the pl ai nt i ff, p r o x i ma t e l yc a u s e d b yt h e b r e a c h . ” Di s t r i c to f Co l u mb i a v . Ha r r i s , 7 7 0 A. 2 d 8 2 , 8 7 ( D. C. 2001) ; Si ddons v. C ook, 887 A . 2d 689, 696 ( A pp. D i v. , N . J . Super . C t . 2005) ( negl i gence cl ai m r equi r es pl ai nt i ff t o es t abl i s h a dutyow ed t o pl ai nt i ff bydefe ndant , a br eac h of that d u ty , an d an injuryca u sed b yd ef en d an t’ s b rea ch ). I n B oy l e’ s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tas s um ed, w i t houtdeci di ng, the exi s t ence of a d u tyo w e d b yth e U S T P O to B o y le a n d a b re a c h o f th a t d u ty . H o w e v e r, ca u sa tio n a lso is an es s ent i al el ementof a ne gl i gence cl ai m . D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a v. Fr i ck, 291 A . 2d 83, 8 4 (D .C . 1 9 7 2 ) (“ It is e lem e n tar yth a t an e ss e n tial e lem e n t in a n yn e g lig e n c e a c tio n is caus at i on, i . e. , a r eas onabl e ca us al connec t i on betw een the ac torom i s s i on of the defe ndantand the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur y . ”) ; D aw s on v. B unkerH i l l Pl aza A s s oc. , 673 A . 2d 847, 855 ( A pp. D i v. , N . J . Super . C t . 1996) ( s ame) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned that B o y le c o u ld n o t sh o w th a t th e re w a s a n yg e n u in e d isp u te a b o u t ca u sa tio n . U n d e r R u le 56( c) , t he movi ng par t ym us ts how thatther e i s an abs ence of evi dence t o s uppor tthe nonm ovi ng par t y ’ s cas e. O nce the movi ng par t yhas m etthi s bur den, the nonmovi ng8

partym aynotr es tupon hi s al l egat i ons and ar gum ent s , s ee A nder s on, 477 U . S. at249; r ather , the nonmovi ng part ym us t“s etouts peci fi c fa ct s s how i ng a genui ne i s s ue for trial,” F e d . R . C iv . P ro . 5 6 (e )(2 ). A p lain tiff c a n n o t av o id su m m a ryju d g m e n t w ith s pecul at i on; he mustpr ovi de compet entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcan fi nd i n hi s favor . See R i dgew ood B d. of Educ. v. N . E . ex r el . M . E . , 172 F. 3d 238, 252 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). O nce the def

endant s m ett hei rbur den, B oy l e had t o pr ovi de compet entevi dence thatthe al l eged mi s s i ng par t s of the pat entfi l e ca us ed hi m t o l os e hi s pat enti nfr i ngement cas e. H e s uppl i ed no s uch evi dence i n t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow and r ai s es no per s uas i ve arg u m en ts i n h is brief o n ap p ea l con ce rnin g the c au sati o n issue . T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e c isio n in B o y le v . M o lso n C o o rs B re w in g C o ., 2 0 0 7 W L 2 6 8 8 9 0 8 , d o e s n o t in d ica te that the c o m p u ter co d e w as a d eterm inative f ac tor i n the d ec isi o n to g ran t sum m ary j udgm entt o M ol s on and Pr i ce W at erhous e. T he det erm i nat i ve fa ct or s w er e thatal l of the cl ai m s i n the ‘ 116 Pat entr equi r ed i nves t m enti n m utual funds butthe al l egedl yi nfr i ngi ng tr ans act i on di d notus e mut ual funds oranyot heri nves t m entvehi cl e; the ‘ 116 Pat entw as unenfor cea bl e as i nval i d beca us e the al l egedl yi nfr i ngi ng conduct , us e of a curr ency sw ap , h ad b ee n o cc u rri n g lon g b ef o re B o y le claim ed to h av e inv en ted it; an d B o y le’s a t t e mp t s t o i n c l u d e n e w m a t t e rwi t h h i s p a t e n twe r e i n v a l i d u n d e rs e c t i o n 1 3 2 ( a ) ( “ No am en d m en t sha ll intr o d u ce n ew m att er into th e d iscl o su re o f th e inv en ti o n ). B oy l e cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n decl ar i ng the ‘ 116 Pat enti nval i d,9

but , j us tas t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, B oy l e w as col l at er al l yes t opped fr om r el i t i gat i ng thati s s ue i n t he FT C A negl i gence act i on, s ee D avi s , 688 F. 2d at174, and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert he corr ectnes s of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on i n B oy l e v. M ol s on C oor s B r ew i ng C o. , 2007 W L 2688908, oranyof i t s rul i ngs i n t hatcas e. Feder al R ul e of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) p r o v i d e s th a ta n o t i c e o f a p p e a l b e f

i l e d w i t h i n 3 0 d a ys aft erentryof j udgm ent . T he Feder al C i r cui tdet erm i ned thatB oy l e’ s appea l w as l at e, and he thus m aynothave r evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pat enti nval i di t ydet erm i nat i on. T he t i m e per i ods pr es cr i bed forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l i n a ci vi l cas e ar e mandat oryand juri sd ict ion al. B o w les v . R u ssell, 5 5 1 U . S . 2 0 5 , 2 1 3 (20 0 7 ). L as t , B oy l e cha l l enges t he i m par t i al i t yof the D i s t r i ctC our t . W e have r evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d and conc l ude thatther e i s no bas i s forr eas onabl yques t i oni ng the D istric t C o u rt’s im p a rtiality , 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 5 5 (a ). W ith re sp e c t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 4 , B o y le di d notfi l e an a ffi davi tas r equi r ed bythe s t atut e. W e al s o concl ude thatthe D i s t r i ct C our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n the managementof di s coveryi n t hi s cas e, s ee I n r e: Fi ne PaperA nt i t rus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( m at t er s of docke tcontr ol a n d c o n d u c t o f

d is c o v e ry a re c o m m itte d to th e s o u n d d is c re tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ). W e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to the d efen dan t s.