NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1029 

GERSH KORSINSKY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Jon W. Dudas, DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Gersh Korsinsky, of Brooklyn, New York, pro se. 

John M. Whealan, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief 

were Mary L. Kelly and Joseph G. Piccolo, Associate Solicitors. 

 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

Judge Denise Cote 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

2007-1029 

GERSH KORSINSKY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

Jon W. Dudas, DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

 __________________________

 DECIDED: April 5, 2007 

 __________________________

Before SCHALL, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit 

Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION 

 Gersh Korsinsky is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,736,447 (“the ’447 patent”), 

covering a “video computer.” After his patent expired for failure to timely pay 

maintenance fees, Mr. Korsinsky filed a petition to reinstate the patent, which was 

denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Subsequently, Mr. 

Korsinsky filed an untimely request for reconsideration of that decision. The PTO 
denied the motion for reconsideration because it was untimely and because it failed to 

show the required unavoidable delay in paying the maintenance fees. Mr. Korsinsky 

then filed suit against Jon W. Dudas (“Director”), the Director of the PTO, in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking relief under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and other statutory and constitutional provisions. 

In due course, the district court granted the Director’s motion for summary judgment on 

the APA claim. Korsinsky v. Dudas (Trial Court Decision), No. 05-CV-2791, slip op. at 

10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2005). The district court dismissed the remaining claims 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon 

which relief could be granted. Id. at 11-15. Mr. Korsinsky now appeals to this court.1 

We affirm. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

 The ’447 patent issued on August 26, 1985, with a maximum term of seventeen 

years from that date. Under 35 U.S.C. § 41(b), to maintain the patent’s validity, Mr. 

Korsinsky was required to pay maintenance fees to the PTO at three-and-a-half-, 

seven-and-a-half-, and eleven-and-a-half-year intervals from the date of issue. The 

statute includes a six-month grace period after each of those dates, during which the 

owner of the patent may make the required payments and maintain a patent’s validity. 

Mr. Korsinsky failed to make the first required maintenance payment at the required 

 1

 Mr. Korsinsky originally appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, but the case was transferred to this court because it arises under 28 

U.S.C. § 1338. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 

826, 829 (2002); Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 

2005); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

2007-1029 2
three-and-a-half-year mark and during the grace period. See Trial Court Decision, at 2-

3. Therefore, on April 6, 1992, after the grace period for the three-and-a-half-year 

maintenance fee had expired, the ’447 patent expired. See 36 U.S.C. § 41(b). 

On April 29, 2004, Mr. Korsinsky filed a petition seeking to have the ’447 patent 

reinstated. Trial Court Decision, at 2. Mr. Korsinsky explained that he had failed to pay 

the maintenance fee was because “the notice of maintenance fee was not received.” Id. 

On May 17, 2004, the PTO dismissed Mr. Korsinsky’s petition because the lack of 

receipt of the reminder was not sufficient to show unavoidable delay and because Mr. 

Korsinsky had not included the now due seven-and-a-half- and eleven-and-a-half-year 

maintenance fees. Id. 2-3. The PTO informed Mr. Korsinsky that he could either file a 

request for reconsideration, containing information proving that the delay in paying the 

fee was unavoidable, or he could request a refund of the three-and-a-half-year 

maintenance fee he had included with his petition. Id. at 3. The PTO also informed Mr. 

Korsinsky that any request for reconsideration had to be filed within two months. Id. On 

June 1, 2004, Mr. Korsinsky requested the refund. Id.

Thereafter, on September 8, 2004, Mr. Korsinsky filed an untimely request for 

reconsideration. Id. In the request, Mr. Korsinsky stated that he had been unable to 

pay the maintenance fees because all of his assets were under joint control with his wife 

and she had refused to permit him to pay the fees. Id. The request included all pastdue maintenance fees. Id. at 4. 

The Commissioner of the PTO requested evidence from Mr. Korsinsky “to 

establish that the instant petition should not be dismissed as untimely.” Id. Mr. 

Korsinsky responded that he had not received the maintenance fee reminder, his wife 

2007-1029 3
had prevented him from paying the fees, and he did not want to publicize “family 

secrets.” Id. Mr. Korsinsky included a copy of an agreement between himself and his 

wife that “[a]ll future investment and like will be by joint agreement and authorization 

only.” He also included three affidavits from his wife, in which she stated that she had 

previously opposed paying the maintenance fees but now authorized their payment. Id.

at 4-5. On February 15, 2005, the Commissioner denied Mr. Korsinsky’s request for 

reconsideration as both untimely and meritless. Id. at 5. 

Mr. Korsinsky then filed suit against the Director in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of New York under the APA, seeking reversal of the 

PTO’s decision. Mr. Korsinsky also included claims under the Takings Clause of the 

Fifth Amendment, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and The Freedom of 

Information Act. As noted, the district court granted the Director’s motion for summary 

judgment on the APA claim. Id. at 10. At the same time, the district court dismissed the 

remaining claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state 

claims upon which relief could be granted. Id. at 11-15. This appeal followed. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II. 

 We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment and dismissal for failure 

to state a claim de novo. Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1281 (summary judgment); Univ. of 

W. Va. Bd. of Trs. v. Vanvoorhies, 278 F.3d 1288, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (failure to state 

a claim). Under the APA, we only “hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found 

to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2); Star Fruits, 393 F.3d at 1281. 

2007-1029 4
Mr. Korsinsky’s main argument on appeal is that the PTO has designed a system 

with tricks and traps that duped him into disclosing his invention and paying substantial 

sums only to have his invention later confiscated. He argues that this system violates 

Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution, which grants Congress 

the power “[t]o promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited 

times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and 

discoveries.” 

We agree with the district court that the maintenance fees and the patent system 

put in place by Congress and the PTO do not conflict with the Constitution. Congress 

has mandated the maintenance fees, and the PTO has properly enforced that 

requirement. See 35 U.S.C. § 41; 37 C.F.R. § 1.378(b). Moreover, we see no error in 

the ruling of the district court that Mr. Korsinsky failed to meet his burden of showing 

that the delay in filing his motion for reconsideration was unavoidable. Trial Court 

Decision, at 9. As the district court pointed out, the Commissioner offered several 

grounds to deny Mr. Korsinsky’s motion: it was undisputedly two months late; he failed 

to include the agreement with his wife with his original filing; and he failed to prove the 

agreement’s authenticity or how the agreement actually prevented him from paying the 

maintenance fees. Id. at 9-10. We agree with the district court that in light of this 

evidence, the Commissioner’s decision is not arbitrary or capricious. 

III. 

 As for Mr. Korsinsky’s claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and The Freedom of Information Act, we 

2007-1029 5
have reviewed Mr. Korsinsky’s various arguments and have found them to be without 

merit. The district court did not err in dismissing those claims. 

 For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

2007-1029 6