Court Opinion

ID: 9909071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 16:01:07.439446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:56.773277
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1666    Document: 28     Page: 1   Filed: 12/12/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   CHIKEZIE OTTAH,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    NATIONAL GRID,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1666
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of New York in No. 1:22-cv-02935-PAE-
 RWL, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
                  ______________________

                Decided: December 12, 2023
                  ______________________

    CHIKEZIE OTTAH, Elmont, NY, pro se.

    ARIEL ELAINE RONNEBURGER, Cullen and Dykman
 LLP, Uniondale, NY, for defendant-appellee.
                 ______________________

     Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
     Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United
 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Case: 23-1666     Document: 28     Page: 2    Filed: 12/12/2023

 2                                     OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID

 dismissing his patent infringement claim as barred by
 claim preclusion. Ottah v. Nat’l Grid, No. 22 Civ. 2935,
 2023 WL 1433667 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2023). Because we
 agree that claim preclusion bars Mr. Ottah from bringing
 the same claim again, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      U.S. Patent No. 7,152,840 (’840 patent), entitled “Book
 Holder,” is directed to “a removable book holder assembly
 for use by a person in a protective or mobile structure such
 as a car seat, wheelchair, walker, or stroller.” ’840 patent
 col. 1 ll. 6–9. Before Mr. Ottah filed the suit underlying
 this appeal, on September 5, 2019, Mr. Ottah filed suit
 against National Grid in the Southern District of New
 York, alleging that National Grid’s vehicular laptop
 mounting device infringed the ’840 patent. Ottah v. Nat’l
 Grid, No. 19 Civ. 8289 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020). In this
 earlier litigation, the district court granted National Grid’s
 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and entered
 final judgment dismissing the case.
     On April 8, 2022, Mr. Ottah filed the suit underlying
 this appeal, again in the Southern District of New York and
 again alleging that National Grid’s vehicular laptop
 mounting device infringed the ’840 patent. National Grid
 moved to dismiss on the grounds that Mr. Ottah lacked
 standing, could not plausibly state a claim for patent in-
 fringement because his claims were barred under claim
 preclusion (also referred to as res judicata), and was at
 least partially time-barred from pursuing monetary recov-
 ery. The district court granted National Grid’s motion to
 dismiss on the basis of claim preclusion. Ottah, 2023 WL
 1433667, at *2.
    Mr. Ottah timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
     Whether a cause of action is barred by claim preclusion
 is a question of law that we review without deference.
Case: 23-1666     Document: 28      Page: 3    Filed: 12/12/2023

 OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID                                       3

 Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc., 746 F.3d 1045, 1052 (Fed.
 Cir. 2014). To determine whether claim preclusion bars a
 later lawsuit, we generally apply the law of the regional
 circuit in which the trial court resides, in this case the Sec-
 ond Circuit. Id. (citing Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525
 F.3d 1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The Second Circuit has
 held that claim preclusion bars litigation on a claim if an
 “earlier decision was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2)
 by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving
 the same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the
 same cause of action.” Hansen v. Miller, 52 F.4th 96, 100–
 01 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d
 155, 168 (2d Cir. 2021)). A “dismissal for failure to state a
 claim is a final judgment on the merits and thus has res
 judicata effects.” Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d
 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
 Whether two claims of infringement constitute the same
 claim or cause of action is an issue particular to patent law
 and we apply our own law on that issue. See Hallco Mfg.
 Co. v. Foster, 256 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For pa-
 tent infringement cases, causes of action are the same if
 the accused products are “essentially the same” and “the
 same patents are involved in both suits.” In re Personal-
 Web Techs. LLC, 961 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
     The district court correctly concluded that the require-
 ments for claim preclusion are satisfied here. First, the
 district court’s decision granting National Grid’s motion to
 dismiss in the earlier suit is a final judgment on the merits.
 See Berrios, 564 F.3d at 134. Second, there is no dispute
 that the district court is a court of competent jurisdiction.
 Third, both lawsuits involve the same parties: Mr. Ottah
 and National Grid. 1 Fourth, both lawsuits involve the

     1    Mr. Ottah asserts that he was not a participant in
 the earlier litigation because he did not receive Magistrate
 Judge Lehrburger’s report and recommendation from the
 court, but this is not the legal standard for the “same par-
 ties” prong of claim preclusion.
Case: 23-1666    Document: 28      Page: 4   Filed: 12/12/2023

 4                                   OTTAH v. NATIONAL GRID

 same claim, alleging infringement of the ’840 patent by the
 same vehicular laptop mounting device. Because Mr. Ot-
 tah’s prior suit resulted in a final judgment on the merits
 by a court of competent jurisdiction, and both suits involve
 the same parties and claim, we agree with the district court
 that claim preclusion bars Mr. Ottah’s suit underlying this
 appeal.
      Even if Mr. Ottah had raised new arguments or in-
 fringement theories based on the ’840 patent in the current
 litigation, an issue we need not—and do not—decide, he
 was still barred from bringing a second claim alleging in-
 fringement of the same patent accusing the same product.
 See PersonalWeb, 961 F.3d at 1375 (“Regardless of the
 number of substantive theories available . . . a party may
 not split a single claim into separate grounds of recovery
 and raise those separate grounds in successive lawsuits.”).
 Claim preclusion bars any new arguments or theories re-
 lating to infringement of the ’840 patent by National Grid’s
 vehicular laptop mounting device.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Mr. Ottah’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 the district court properly concluded that Mr. Ottah’s pa-
 tent infringement claim was barred by claim preclusion.
 The district court’s dismissal of Mr. Ottah’s complaint is
 affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.