IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30508

Summary Calendar

VELMA JEAN RICHARDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; CAMERON

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; TRANSOCEAN; HALLIBURTON

ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; GULF COAST CLAIMS

FACILITY,

Defendants-Appellees

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INCORPORATED;

TRANSOCEAN DEEPWATER, INCORPORATED; TRANSOCEAN

HOLDINGS, L.L.C.; TRITON ASSET LEASING GMBH,

Movants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CV-1096

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30508 Document: 00512196809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2013
No. 12-30508

Plaintiff Velma Jean Richards appeals from the dismissal of her pro se

complaint alleging that the defendants stole her intellectual property by

misappropriating her copyrighted or patented ideas for stopping the 2010 oil

spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The thrust of her complaint concerns several

submissions she made to BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated (BP) from

May to July 2010 of Alternative Response Technology (ART) proposals for how

to address the spill. Richards alleges that she observed media pictures of her

second ART proposal, a giant plunger device, being used by BP and attempted

to communicate with BP, Kenneth Feinberg and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility 

regarding the use of her idea. She also alleges that she filed a provisional patent

application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office presumably

covering her plunger idea. 

Several defendants filed motions to dismiss and Richards file a motion for

judgment on the pleadings. In its Order and Reasons deciding these motions,

the district court respectfully and thoroughly reviewed Richards’ complaint for 

any facially plausible claim that would allow her complaint to survive the Rule

12(b)(6) motions. Ashcroft v. Igbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). After our review

of the record, we agree with the district court that Richards has failed to state

a copyright infringement claim because she does not plausibly allege that the

defendants copied any original work of authorship by her. Amazing Spaces, Inc

v. Metro Mini Storage, 608 F.3d 225, 251 (5th Cir. 2010). Similarly, her claim

for patent infringement fails for lack of an allegation that the defendants made,

used, or sold any patented invention owned by her. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Nor does

she allege facts that would support her general claim of theft of her intellectual

property under any other legal theory. 

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in the district court’s

Order and Reasons dated April 23, 2012, the district court properly granted the

motions to dismiss Richards’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied Richards’

2

 Case: 12-30508 Document: 00512196809 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2013
No. 12-30508

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment

of dismissal is AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 12-30508 Document: 00512196809 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2013