N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
BENJAMIN GAL

- OR, Plaintiff

- Appellant

VALERY SHERBAUM, MICHAEL LICHTSINDER, Plaintiffs

v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 5079

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:09

- cv

- 00869

- SGB, Judge Susan G. Braden.

______________________
Decided: November 4, 2015

______________________
B ENJAMIN G AL -O R , Malabalay City, Mindanao, Phi lippines, pro se.

D AVID M. R UDDY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, for defendant -appellee. Also represented by B ENJAMIN C. M IZER , J OHN F ARGO

.GAL

- OR v. US 2

______________________
Before O’M ALLEY , P LAGER , and B RYSON , Circuit Jud g es.
P ER C URIAM

. Mr. Gal

- Or appeals from a final judgment by the United States C ourt of Federal Claims (“trial court”) dismissing t his case with prejudice

. We review the trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim without deference. Cary v. United States

, 552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We review the trial court’ s dismissal, made pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Rules o f the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) , for abuse of discretion

. Claude E. Atkins E nters., Inc. v. United States , 899 F.2d 1180, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). On appeal, Mr. Gal

- Or fails to show any error in the proceedings below that would warrant reversal. He offers

no meritorious explanation for his failure to comply with the trial court’s show cause order. He offer s no meritor ious explanation as to why the trial court abused its di scret ion in its subsequent dismissal, or why the trial court erred in dismissing the trade secrets takings claims. Regarding the patent claim, the trial court acted wit hin its discretion, and we decline to disturb its dismissal on appeal. Plaintiffs were speci fically warned that a failure to respond or file claim construction charts in response to the show cause order would result in dismissal pursuant to R CFC 41(b). Plaintiffs failed to respond to that order, to offer any explanation for that failure , or to seek add itional time

. P laintiffs made no filings whatsoever in the roughly three months following the trial court’s order. The only filing by plaintiffs since the order was Mr. Gal

Or’s notice of appeal to this court. On this record, t heGAL

- OR v. US 3

trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the patent claim pursuant to RCFC 41(b). Regarding the trade secrets claims, we agree with the trial court that dismissal was proper. Mr. Gal

- Or di sclosed the trade secrets at issue to others who had no obligation to protect the information’s confidentiality. In addition, he cannot sue the Government for an alleged taking by a private party. His potential claims against the Government for inducing or benefiting from trade secrets misappropriation previously expired. Finally, the trade secrets allegations failed to meet the minimum pleading standards of RCFC 8. For the foregoing reasons , we affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims. 1

AFFIRMED

1 Given the result in this appeal, Mr. Gal

- Or’s pen ding motion to substitute another party in his place is denied as moot.