### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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: * U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 3, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30508 Document: 00512196809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2013No. 12-30508

Plaintiff Velma Jean Richard s a p p e a ls from the dismissal of her pro se complaint alleging that t h e defendants stole her i n tellectu a l p r o p erty by misappropriating h er c opyrighted or paten t ed ideas for stopping the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of M exico. The thrust of her complain t c o n cerns 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. R ichards allege s t h at 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 t he Gulf Coast Claims Facility regarding t he use of her idea. She also alleges t hat she filed a provisional patent application with the United States Patent and Tra d emark Office presumably covering her plunger idea. Several defendants filed motions to dismiss and Richards file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. I n its Order a n d R easons deciding these motions, the district c ourt respectfully and thoroughly r eviewed Richards’ complaint for any facially plausible claim that would allow h er complaint to survive the Rule 12(b)(6) motions. Ashcroft v. Igbal , 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). After o ur review of the record, we agree with the district court that Richards has failed to state

a copyright infringement claim b ecau s e she does not plausibly a llege that the defendants copied any original work o f authorship by her. A mazing Spaces, Inc

v. Metro Mini Storage , 608 F.3d 225, 251 ( 5th C ir. 2010). Simila r l y , h e r claim for patent infringement fails for lack o f a n allegation that the defendants made, used, or sold any patented invention owned by her. 3 5 U.S.C. § 271(a). Nor does she allege facts that would support her general claim o f theft of h er intellectual property under any other legal theory. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated i n t h e district court’s Order a nd Reasons dated April 23, 2012, the district court properly granted the

m o ti o n s t o dismiss Richards’ complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied Richard s ’

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

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Accordingly, t he district court’s judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

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