Court Opinion

ID: 9891382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 15:01:40.804096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:05.583529
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1219    Document: 48    Page: 1     Filed: 10/18/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   CHIKEZIE OTTAH,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                VERIFONE SYSTEM INC.,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1219
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of New York in No. 1:21-cv-09645-AT-
 GWG, Judge Analisa Torres.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: October 18, 2023
                  ______________________

    CHIKEZIE OTTAH, Elmont, NY, pro se.

    CAROLYN CHANG, Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang
 LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee.
                 ______________________

    Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-1219    Document: 48      Page: 2    Filed: 10/18/2023

 2                             OTTAH v. VERIFONE SYSTEM INC.

     Chikezie Ottah appeals a decision from the United
 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
 dismissing his patent infringement claim as barred by
 claim preclusion. For the following reasons, we affirm.
                               I
     Mr. Ottah is the inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No.
 7,152,840 (“’840 patent”), titled “Book Holder,” which is di-
 rected 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 at 1:6-9.
 On September 2, 2011, Mr. Ottah filed suit in the Southern
 District of New York against VeriFone Systems, Inc. (“Ver-
 ifone”), alleging that Verifone’s mounts for electronic dis-
 play screens used in New York City taxi cabs infringed the
 ’840 patent. The district court granted summary judgment
 of non-infringement as to literal infringement and infringe-
 ment under the doctrine of equivalents. See Ottah v. Veri-
 Fone Sys., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-06187, 2012 WL 4841755, at *2-
 4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012) (“2012 decision”). Mr. Ottah ap-
 pealed the 2012 decision and we affirmed. See Ottah
 v. VeriFone Sys., Inc., 524 F. App’x 627, 629-30 (Fed. Cir.
 2013).
      Eight years later, on November 22, 2021, Mr. Ottah
 filed a new suit against Verifone, again in the Southern
 District of New York and again alleging infringement of the
 ’840 patent by Verifone’s mounts used in New York City
 taxi cabs. Verifone filed a motion to dismiss based on the
 doctrine of claim preclusion. On July 11, 2022, the district
 court granted the motion to dismiss. See Ottah v. Verifone
 Sys. Inc., No. 1:21-cv-09645, 2022 WL 3031119, at *1
 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2022).
    Mr. Ottah timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                              II
    We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss
 under the standards applicable in the regional circuit in
Case: 23-1219    Document: 48       Page: 3   Filed: 10/18/2023

 OTTAH v. VERIFONE SYSTEM INC.                              3

 which the district court is located, which here is the Second
 Circuit. See In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, 961 F.3d 1365,
 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020). A dismissal order based on claim
 preclusion is reviewed de novo. See Simmons v. Trans Ex-
 press, Inc., 16 F.4th 357, 360 (2d Cir. 2021); accord Hallco
 Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 256 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 1
 Claim preclusion bars a cause of action when (1) a prior
 suit resulted in a judgment on the merits, (2) the second
 suit involves the same parties as the prior suit or parties
 in privity with them, and (3) the second suit is “based on
 the same cause of action” as the prior suit. Parklane Hosi-
 ery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979); see also
 Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150, 157
 (2d Cir. 2017).
     Determining whether multiple causes of action for pa-
 tent infringement are the same is an issue “particular to
 patent law” that we analyze under Federal Circuit law.
 Hallco, 256 F.3d at 1294. For patent 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.” PersonalWeb, 961 F.3d at 1375.
                              III
     The district court correctly concluded that the require-
 ments for application of claim preclusion are satisfied here.
 Both lawsuits involved the same parties: Mr. Ottah and
 Verifone. The district court’s 2012 decision granting sum-
 mary judgment of non-infringement is a “judgment on the
 merits” – it addressed all arguments made by the parties,
 including by concluding that Mr. Ottah had failed to

     1    Our precedent applies the law of the regional cir-
 cuit to the general principles of claim preclusion and Fed-
 eral Circuit law to the patent-specific portions of claim
 preclusion (i.e., whether patent infringement causes of ac-
 tion are the same). See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525
 F.3d 1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Case: 23-1219     Document: 48     Page: 4    Filed: 10/18/2023

 4                             OTTAH v. VERIFONE SYSTEM INC.

 adduce sufficient evidence to sustain a judgment of in-
 fringement, and closed the case. See 2012 decision at *4
 (“Accordingly, the VeriFone mounts do not infringe the ’840
 patent and summary judgment is granted.”). Both law-
 suits also involve the same cause of action since both allege
 infringement of the ’840 patent by the same taxi display
 mount product. Compare Appellee Appx. 29 (2021 com-
 plaint), with Appellee Appx. 149 (2011 complaint). Since
 Mr. Ottah’s later-filed suit involves the same parties, as-
 serts the same cause of action, and follows a final judgment
 on that cause of action, we agree with the district court that
 claim preclusion bars adjudication of Mr. Ottah’s 2021 law-
 suit.
     Even if Mr. Ottah raised new arguments or infringe-
 ment theories in his 2021 complaint, an issue we need not
 – and do not – decide, he was still barred from bringing a
 second claim alleging infringement of the same patent ac-
 cusing 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 sep-
 arate grounds of recovery and raise those separate grounds
 in successive lawsuits.”). Therefore, any new arguments or
 theories, even if Mr. Ottah asserted them, do not provide a
 meritorious basis to avoid application of claim preclusion.
     For the foregoing reasons, the district court properly
 concluded that Mr. Ottah’s cause of action was barred by
 claim preclusion.
                              IV
      The district court’s dismissal of Mr. Ottah’s complaint
 is affirmed.
                           AFFIRMED
                              COSTS
 No costs.