Court Opinion

ID: 9373884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:09:49.776708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.833389
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2155    Document: 27    Page: 1   Filed: 02/22/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

        PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY,
                Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2022-2155
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of Texas in No. 4:22-cv-02204, Judge
 Keith P. Ellison.
                   ______________________

                Decided: February 22, 2023
                 ______________________

    PROBIR KUMAR BONDYOPADHYAY, Houston, TX, pro se.

     NELSON KUAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
 SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, BRIAN M. BOYNTON, GARY LEE
 HAUSKEN.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-2155    Document: 27     Page: 2    Filed: 02/22/2023

 2                                     BONDYOPADHYAY    v. US

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and DYK, Circuit
                          Judges.
 PER CURIAM
     Dr. Probir K. Bondyopadhyay appeals a decision of the
 United States District Court for the Southern District of
 Texas dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim
 upon which relief can be granted. For the following rea-
 sons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      Dr. Bondyopadhyay owns U.S. Patent No. 6,292,134.
 This is his third appeal regarding the ’134 patent. Rele-
 vant here, on November 27, 2019, Dr. Bondyopadhyay filed
 a complaint against the United States in the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims, which the court construed as alleging infringe-
 ment of the ’134 patent, fraudulent or false conduct by the
 government, and a patent-based Takings Clause claim.
 Bondyopadhyay v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 176, 178
 (2020) (Bondyopadhyay III), aff’d, 850 F. App’x 761 (Fed.
 Cir. 2021) (Bondyopadhyay IV). The United States moved
 to dismiss the complaint as barred by the doctrine of res
 judicata and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Bon-
 dyopadhyay III, 149 Fed. Cl. at 183. The Court of Federal
 Claims determined Dr. Bondyopadhyay’s infringement
 claims were barred under res judicata because of a non-in-
 fringement judgment entered against him in 2014. See
 Bondyopadhyay IV, 850 F. App’x at 762–63 (citing Bondy-
 opadhyay v. United States, 136 Fed. Cl. 114, 116 (2018)
 (Bondyopadhyay I), aff’d, 848 F. App’x 301 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
 (Bondyopadhyay II)). Regarding his takings claim and
 fraud claim, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack
 of jurisdiction. Id. at 763. We affirmed the Court of Fed-
 eral Claims’ dismissal of Dr. Pondyopadhyay’s claims. Id.
 at 764–65.
     On July 5, 2022, Dr. Bondyopadhyay filed a complaint
 in the Southern District of Texas, alleging Bondyopadhyay
Case: 22-2155    Document: 27      Page: 3    Filed: 02/22/2023

 BONDYOPADHYAY    v. US                                     3

 III “failed to differentiate between” Article I’s grant of
 power to Congress to promote the progress of science and
 the useful arts and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
 See S. App’x 16. Specifically, he alleges he is entitled to
 “enforcement of a U.S. Constitutional Order . . . arising out
 of unauthorized use of a patented invention” by the Air
 Force, which he refers to as a “Jeffersonian Claim.” S.
 App’x 14, 17. He also argues that when the Air Force up-
 dates its system that system will then infringe his U.S. Pa-
 tent No. 11,296,408. S. App’x 15. The United States moved
 to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). The dis-
 trict court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(6). S.
 App’x 1–3. Dr. Bondyopadhyay appeals. We have jurisdic-
 tion over the claims regarding the ’134 patent under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
                          DISCUSSION
     We review the district court’s dismissal under regional
 circuit law, here the Fifth Circuit. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
 Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Fifth
 Circuit    reviews     “motions     to    dismiss   pursuant
 to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as
 true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to
 the plaintiff.” Balle v. Nueces Cnty., 952 F.3d 552, 556 (5th
 Cir. 2017) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
 We may affirm a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on any
 ground supported by the record, including for lack of stand-
 ing. Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2006).
 Res judicata may be applied on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
 where its application “is apparent from the complaint and
 judicially noticed facts and the plaintiff fails to challenge
 the defendant’s failure to plead it as an affirmative de-
 fense.” Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 953 F.3d 311,
 314 (5th Cir. 2020).
     Dr. Bondyopadhyay argues his “Jeffersonian Claim” is
 not a Takings Clause claim. Appellant’s Informal Opening
 Br. at 7. He argues that the district court failed to assess
Case: 22-2155    Document: 27      Page: 4    Filed: 02/22/2023

 4                                      BONDYOPADHYAY    v. US

 infringement of the ’134 patent “against the offending” Air
 Force program. Id. at 7–8. Whether this claim is brought
 under the Fifth Amendment or under the Patent Act, Dr.
 Bondyopadhyay has already litigated these claims several
 times without success. See Bondyopadhyay I, 850 F. App’x
 at 762–65 (“But regardless how Dr. Bondyopadhyay char-
 acterizes his claims, as unauthorized use of the patent or
 depriving him of a constitutional right to make a living, his
 claims boil down to patent infringement, claims that were
 previously adjudicated against him, and he has failed to al-
 lege sufficient additional facts to indicate otherwise.”). We
 affirm the district court’s dismissal based on res judicata.
     To the extent Dr. Bondyopadhyay alleges he is entitled
 to relief due to the Air Force’s future infringement of the
 ’408 patent by implementing any “design corrections”
 taught by the ’408 patent’s “simpler, cheaper[,] and faster”
 design, that alleged future injury is “conjectural or hypo-
 thetical.” See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560
 (1992) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
 We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of that
 claim for lack of jurisdiction.
                        AFFIRMED