Opinion ID: 3066487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Knight’s Arguments

Text: Knight initially raises numerous arguments alleging fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office by the University. Although the argument is not entirely clear, Knight appears to be arguing, among other things, that the University fraudulently amended its United States patent applications so that a different inventor could claim what he and Scallen actually invented. Knight makes numerous additional allegations related to the University’s alleged complicity in supposedly allowing its licensee to claim credit for what Scallen and Knight actually invented, but Knight never explains how any of this 04-1281, -1282 8 relates to the current appeal. As noted above, Knight’s counterclaims were dismissed for being: (1) not compulsory, (2) barred by relevant statutes of limitations and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and (3) in the case of his claim for royalties, unproven. Knight’s allegations, even if true, do not show any error in the district court’s decisions on these issues. With respect to Knight’s royalties claim in particular, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University dismissing the claim due to Knight’s lack of evidence. Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, No. CIV 99-577 (D.N.M. Jan. 8, 2004) (Mem. Op. & Order). In granting summary judgment, the district court noted that the University argued that it did not owe Knight royalties until the patents produced a net income, which the University asserted had not yet occurred. Id. The district court held that Knight had not raised a material issue of fact challenging these assertions, stating, “Instead, Knight’s Response contains multiple amorphous and illogical arguments that do not pertain to the issue of royalties.” Id., slip op. at 6. Knight has not directed this court to any evidence that a material issue of fact existed precluding summary judgment or that the district court incorrectly applied the law in reaching its decision. Knight also alleges numerous improprieties by the district court, including appointing a special master who taught at the University, concealing the fact that the special master taught at the University, allowing the University’s licensee to receive Knight and Scallen’s confidential information, and refusing to consider timely pleadings regarding recusal of Judge Conway. All of these issues except that relating to recusal of Judge Conway arose prior to Knight’s last appeal and cannot be raised now. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 236 F.3d 1342, 1347-49 (Fed. Cir. 2001). With respect to recusal of 04-1281, -1282 9 Judge Conway, Knight presents no substantive argument as to why Judge Conway’s refusal to recuse himself constituted error. Finally, Knight argues that a continuing wrong precludes a statute of limitations and a Tort Claims Act defense. As evidence of such a “continuing wrong,” Knight cites conduct occurring in September 1994 and a letter from the University to an attorney for Knight dated July 8, 1997. Knight does not explain to which of his counterclaims this evidence purportedly relates, nor does Knight explain how merely restating the University’s position in the July 1997 letter constitutes a “continuing wrong” sufficient to toll a statute of limitations under New Mexico law. Knight also argues that the University’s failure to timely respond to his letter in 1998 after stating that it would “respond shortly” somehow makes his counterclaim within the statute of limitations. The district court found, however, that Knight’s claim for slander of inventorship— presumably the cause of action to which Knight is referring—arose in 1995. Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, CIV 99-577, slip op. at 11 (D.N.M. June 18, 2003) (Mem. Op. & Order). Thus, when Knight wrote the letter in 1998, the two-year statute of limitations had already run, and the letter could not have tolled the statute of limitations. Similarly, Knight’s allegation that the University unlawfully changed inventorship in August 1995, even if true, could not make his counterclaim timely because his initial counterclaim was filed June 9, 1999. Knight has not demonstrated any error in the district court’s decision. 04-1281, -1282 10