# 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 wasordered 

### 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 

### Replyfails to establish ownership 

### of the 

### '844 Patent. 

### Accordingly, the 

### court has 

### determined thatthe 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 Iawsu 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, inthe United States Federal Coun. These exclu5ive rights are assigned to Astornet because Astornet wa5the 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 Districtcourt in protection of patent '944 intellectual property, that iswhen the Federal District court final decision is not infavor of AstornetAstornet patent '844 assigned rights, as per this letter/agreement, shall b€automatically terminated, effective upon the Federal Court decision date. with orwithout termination notice. Furthermore, Patent '844 Title Holder may promptly terminate the assigned exclusive rights slipulated inthis letter. This Agreement may beterminated by giving written notice oftermination toAstornet, such termination being immediately effective upon the giving of such notice oftermination. Terms The term of this Agreement shall begin asof February 1, 2014 (the 

### "tffective Date"). The term of this Agreement shall expire on February 1,2019, unless terminated earlier gursuanttothe terms of the Termination Seclion. Extensions The term of lhis Agreement shall be extended for Five (SIadditional 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 atermination pursuanl to the termination clause above or upon expiration of this ASteement pursuant tothe Terms and Extensions above, Astornet shall not have any ob,igation to Patent '844 Holder, for compensation orfor damages of any kind, and vice versa, 'grt4 patent hotder shall not have any obligation toAstornet, for compensation orfor damages of any kind.

Michael Haddad '844 Sole Patent holder.