NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TIMOTHY SHERIDAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-5073

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:14-cv-00696-MCW, Judge Mary Ellen 

Coster Williams.

______________________ 

Decided: October 8, 2015 

______________________ 

 TIMOTHY SHERIDAN, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

 JOHN J. FARGO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
2 SHERIDAN v. US

PER CURIAM. 

Thomas Sheridan brought this case against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims based on allegations that various private persons have infringed or are 

infringing his patent. The court dismissed Mr. Sheridan’s 

complaint, holding that he had not identified any law that 

permits the recovery he seeks from the United States for 

third parties’ infringements. Sheridan v. United States, 

120 Fed. Cl. 127 (2015). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Sheridan is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 

7,415,982. Naming him as the inventor, the patent describes and claims a “smokeless pipe,” which delivers to a 

“smoker” the active, volatile components of a substance 

like tobacco but does so without combustion, thereby 

avoiding delivery of dangerous byproducts of burning. 

Mr. Sheridan alleges that a large number of sellers of 

smokeless pipes are infringing his patent and that some 

search engines and other online sites hide his website and 

block his ads. See Sheridan, 120 Fed. Cl. at 129. In this 

suit, Mr. Sheridan asserts that the United States violated 

federal statutes by failing to “assist” him in recovering 

losses from the numerous infringers of his patent, and he 

seeks damages of between $30 billion and $496 billion. 

Id. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Sheridan’s 

complaint. Id. at 132. It held that none of the statutes 

Mr. Sheridan invoked in his complaint or in his briefing 

subjects the United States to monetary liability on the 

facts he alleges in his complaint. Id. at 130–32. For that 

reason, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction and, in the 

alternative, that the complaint does not state a claim on 

which relief could be granted. Id. at 132 & n.2.
SHERIDAN v. US 3

Mr. Sheridan appeals. We have jurisdiction to hear 

the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review the dismissal de novo, there being no factual or discretionary determinations of the Court of 

Federal Claims to which we owe deference. Laguna 

Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); 

Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 

2011) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). Mr. Sheridan 

identifies three statutes that he says allow him to bring 

this suit against the United States for monetary damages. 

But none of the statutes suffices to support this action.

One statute is 22 U.S.C. § 2351, but the claim under

that statute fails at the jurisdictional threshold. The 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), which is the only 

relevant jurisdictional grant for this purpose, covers a 

claim “founded . . . upon . . . any Act of Congress” only if 

the particular statute is one that mandates monetary 

relief against the United States when violated. See United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009); 

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976); Fisher 

v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc in relevant part). Section 2351 does no such thing. 

It provides for the federal government to assist other 

countries for increasing international trade, 22 U.S.C. 

§ 2351(a), and for the President to take various actions to 

“encourage and facilitate participation by private enterprise” to further that goal, § 2351(b). It also establishes 

an “International Private Investment Advisory Council on 

Foreign Aid” to advise the government on how to involve 

private companies in international aid programs. 

§ 2351(c). Nowhere did Congress provide for a cause of 

action to secure monetary relief against the government 

for any violations of section 2351. Mr. Sheridan’s invoca-
4 SHERIDAN v. US

tion of the provision, therefore, falls outside the Court of 

Federal Claims’ jurisdiction.

Mr. Sheridan also invokes a related federal statute, 

22 U.S.C. § 2356, but that statute, while it authorizes 

monetary relief against the government in some circumstances, does not do so on the facts alleged by Mr. Sheridan. Section 2356 is limited to certain infringements 

committed “in connection with the furnishing of assistance under [the Foreign Assistance Act].” 22 U.S.C. 

§ 2356(a); see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 534 

F.2d 889, 899 (Ct. Cl. 1976) (Act covers “patent infringement claims arising in connection with the Government’s 

foreign military sales and assistance activities”). Mr.

Sheridan has not alleged facts placing the underlying 

infringements within that narrowly circumscribed category. Accordingly, Mr. Sheridan’s claim based on section 

2356 must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on 

which relief can be granted. 

The third statute at issue, 28 U.S.C. § 1498, is similarly inapplicable on the facts alleged. Section 1498 

authorizes monetary suits against the United States in 

two instances: when the United States infringes a patent, 

and when another person infringes a patent acting on 

behalf of the United States, i.e., when an invention “is 

used or manufactured by or for the United States without 

license of the owner thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a); see 

Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1319 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012) (en banc in relevant part). Mr. Sheridan has 

not alleged infringement by the United States; and although he has alleged infringement by private companies, 

he has not alleged that the private infringers had authorization from or otherwise were acting for the federal 

government. Section 1498 thus does not apply here, and 

the claim based on section 1498 therefore must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted. 
SHERIDAN v. US 5

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the complaint is therefore affirmed.

No costs.

AFFIRMED