NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VALENTINA PULNIKOVA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2023-2299

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-01664-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis.

______________________ 

Decided: August 9, 2024

______________________ 

VALENTINA PULNIKOVA, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany, pro se.

 KAVYASRI NAGUMOTU, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

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

SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CONRAD JOSEPH 

DEWITTE, JR. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and STARK, Circuit Judges. 

Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2024
2 PULNIKOVA v. US

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Valentina Pulnikova, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing her complaint against the United States and the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Dr. Pulnikova alleges various falsifications in connection with the 

processing of her patent applications, contending these 

amount to violations of her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The trial court granted the government’s motion to dismiss 

for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on its conclusion that the court did not have jurisdiction over § 1983 actions or other allegations sounding in tort. On appeal, Dr. 

Pulnikova contends that the Court of Federal Claims committed several procedural errors, that an implied contract

existed between her and the PTO, that her tort claims arise 

from breach of that contract, and that the court does have 

jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. We agree with the Court 

of Federal Claims that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction 

and, accordingly, affirm its dismissal of Dr. Pulnikova’s 

complaint.

I 

Dr. Pulnikova is the named inventor on four issued 

U.S. patents. According to Dr. Pulnikova’s complaint, obtaining these patents took more than 12 years. During 

prosecution, examiners issued several office actions, all of 

which Dr. Pulnikova responded to and some of which she 

appealed. Dr. Pulnikova alleges that various individuals 

at the PTO “falsif[ied] the examination of [her] inventions 

under cover of legal authority” and thereby “violated US 

patent law.” S. App’x 1015.1 She further contends that she 

suffered emotional distress as a consequence. The 

1 References to S. App’x refer to the Supplemental 

Appendix submitted by the government.

Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2024
PULNIKOVA v. US 3

complaint expressly states that her claims arise under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

The government filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Pulnikova’s complaint pursuant to Rule of the Court of Federal 

Claims 12(b)(1), contending that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because her claims arise under 

§ 1983 and other claims sound in tort. Dr. Pulnikova responded that the court does have jurisdiction over § 1983 

claims but, in any event, what the government construed 

as tort claims were actually contract claims. The Court of 

Federal Claims concluded it was well-settled that it lacked 

jurisdiction over § 1983 claims and tort claims, and that

Dr. Pulnikova failed to make a non-frivolous allegation of 

the existence of a contract between herself and the PTO. 

Thus, the court granted the government’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

Dr. Pulnikova filed a timely appeal, over which we have 

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

II

We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a 

complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. 

Acevedo v. United States, 824 F.3d 1365, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. 

See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 

746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). 

III

Dr. Pulnikova insists, as she did in the trial court, that 

the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over her 

§ 1983 claims. She is incorrect, as we have explained on 

prior occasions. See, e.g., Drake v. United States, 792 F. 

App’x 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Ajamian v. United States, 

609 F. App’x 652, 654 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Nor does the Court 

of Federal Claims have jurisdiction over her claims sounding in tort. See Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 

Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2024
4 PULNIKOVA v. US

(Fed. Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). As such, the Court 

of Federal Claims correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. 

Dr. Pulnikova contends that, in any event, her claims 

are actually breach-of-contract claims, over which the 

Court of Federal Claims has subject matter jurisdiction 

even if it lacks jurisdiction over § 1983 claims. Tucker Act 

“jurisdiction extends only to contracts either express or implied in fact, and not to claims on contracts implied in law.” 

Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996). 

But Dr. Pulnikova fails to make a non-frivolous allegation 

of the existence of any contract between herself and the 

PTO, express or implied. Instead, as the Court of Federal 

Claims correctly found, Dr. Pulnikova at most made a conclusory, frivolous allegation of an “agreement” with the 

PTO to examine her applications. S. App’x 1015-16. She 

asserts nothing more than “a mutual desire to carry out an 

examination of my inventions,” in the normal and ordinary 

course of PTO operations. Opening Br. at 9. Dr. Pulnikova 

cites no authority for the extraordinary proposition that 

one’s interest in the government operating in compliance

with its statutory, regulatory, and other legal obligations 

creates a contract with the government, giving rise to 

Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims, and 

we are aware of none. 

Finally, Pulnikova does not show any harmful error in 

how the Court of Federal Claims handled her complaint. 

As the government points out, the trial court actually accepted and considered all of the documents she submitted. 

None of them transformed, or could have transformed, her 

claims into different causes of action over which the Court 

of Federal Claims would have had subject-matter jurisdiction.

IV

We have considered Dr. Pulnikova’s other arguments

and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the 

Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 08/09/2024
PULNIKOVA v. US 5

Court of Federal Claims’ order dismissing Dr. Pulnikova’s 

complaint. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-2299 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 08/09/2024