ORIGINAt

l|n tbe @nf te! btutes @ourt of felprsl @lsims

Consl. Nos. 15-l139C, l5-1140C

Filed: September 30, 201 6

'1. 

{. * * * * * i. {.,t * rr {. * * * * * *! t,* *,t {. * * *,} * * t * a * * * r( * * *

+

MICHAEL HADDAD,

Plaintiff, pro se,

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant,

and

FILED

sEP 3 0 20t6

U.S. COURT OF

FEDERAL CLAIMS

Patent Infringement, 28 U.S.C. 91498(a);

Rule 12(b)(1) ofthe Rules of the United

States Court ofFederal Claims Subiect

Matter Jurisdiction;

Standins.

BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION *

SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS DIGITAL *

TECHNOLOGIES LLC and MORPHOTRUST *

USA, LLC, and NCR GOVERNMENT ,k

SYSTEMS, LLC, ,i

*

Third-Party Defendants. 

I

t,f ,t * * +,t * *:t,* {(** * ** * ***,} *+* *:t ,* *:t * * *,}*** *:t+

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On October 6,2015, Mr. Haddad filed twopro se Complaints in the United States Court

of Federal claims fbr infringement of United states Patent No. ?,639,844 ("the 'g44 patent"),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1a98(a). on April 27,2016, the Govemment filed a Motion To Dismiss,

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(l) of the United states court of Federal claims, arguing that Mr. Haddad

did not have standing, as he had transferred all of his rights in the '844 patent to Astomer

Technologies, Inc. prior to filing the Complainls.

On July 14,2016, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the

Govemment's April27,2016 Motion To Dismiss, but ordering Mr. Haddad within forty-five days

to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed . See Haddad v. [Jnited States,I 27 Fed. Cl.

565 (2016). J'herein, Mr. Haddad was ordered to provide documentation to establish that, at the

time the october 6, 2015 complaints were filed, he owned the '844 patent or it reverted to him,

either by agreement with Astomet Technologies, Inc., or otherwise under relevant state law.

?011, Dr+?B 0B0e 5DBq 151,0
On August 23,2016, Mr. Haddad filed a Brief In Support Of The Court Decision Of July

14,2016, however, he provided the attached February l, 2014 letter. ECF No. 38, Ex. L

According to Mr. Haddad, this letter was notarized on August 19,2016. ECF No. 39 at l. This

document, however, does not establish that Mr. Haddad owned the '844 Patent on October 6, 2015.

See Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am. 823 F.3d 615,621 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(nunc pro /lnc assignments do not confer retroactive patent ownership). Likewise, Mr. Haddad's

September 26, 2016 Reply fails to establish ownership of the '844 Patent.

Accordingly, the court has determined that the October 6, 2015 Complaint Nos. 15- 1 139C

and 15-1140C must be dismissed, because Mr. Haddad has not established standing. See28U.S.C.

$ la98(a); see also Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc.,3l5 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir.

2003) ("[T]his court has determined that in order to assert standing for patent infringement, the

plaintiff must demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the

I aw su it ;') (emphasis in original).

The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to dismiss the Complaint Nos. l5-1139C and

l5-1140c.

IT IS SO ORDERED,
Case 1:15-cv-01139-SGB Document 38 Filed 08123116 Paqe 4 ot 4

,.t x hll-.t- f

February, 1, 2014

Astornet Technologies, Inc.

18945 Cross Country Lane

Gaithersburg, MD 20879

In order to effectively pursue '844 patent inffingers BAE Systems, Inc., NCR Government

Solutions, LIC and MorphoTrust USA, LLC., t, patent US 7,639,844 {"'844 ") Title Hold€r agrees to assign

Astornet Technologies, Inc. ("Astornet") the exclusive rights in patent '844 to litigate the CAT/8pSS

matter against above mentioned companies, in the United States Federal Coun.

These exclu5ive rights are assigned to Astornet because Astornet wa5 the party that was severely

aff€cted by the business loss as a result of patent'8rt4 infringement since Astornet was the company to

pursue the'844 patent business with the federal government.

Termination

upon Astornet failure in its legal pursuit in the Federal District court in protection of patent '944

intellectual property, that is when the Federal District court final decision is not in favor of AstornetAstornet patent '844 assigned rights, as per this letter/agreement, shall b€ automatically terminated,

effective upon the Federal Court decision date. with or without termination notice.

Furthermore, Patent '844 Title Holder may promptly terminate the assigned exclusive rights slipulated

in this letter. This Agreement may be terminated by giving written notice of termination to Astornet,

such termination being immediately effective upon the giving of such notice of termination.

Terms

The term of this Agreement shall begin as of February 1, 2014 (the "tffective Date"). The term of this

Agreement shall expire on February 1,2019, unless terminated earlier gursuant to the terms of the

Termination Seclion.

Extensions

The term of lhis Agreement shall be extended for Five (SI additional periods of one (1) year if ,g44

Patent litle holder Sives Astornet written notice of such extension at least 90 days prior to February 1,

2019.

Etfect of Terminrtion

In lhe event of a termination pursuanl to the termination clause above or upon expiration of this

ASteement pursuant to the Terms and Extensions above, Astornet shall not have any ob,igation to

Patent '844 Holder, for compensation or for damages of any kind, and vice versa, 'grt4 patent hotder

shall not have any obligation to Astornet, for compensation or for damages of any kind.

Michael Haddad

'844 Sole Patent holder.