Court Opinion

ID: 9379702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 12:02:06.628622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.479379
License: Public Domain

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
                                          No. 17-307
                                   (Filed: 15 March 2023)
                                  NOT FOR PUBLICATION

***************************************
MICHAEL HADDAD,                          *
                                         *
                  Plaintiff,             *
                                         *
v.                                       *
                                         *
THE UNITED STATES,                       *
                                         *
                  Defendant,             *
                                         *
and                                      *
                                         *
TRANS DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES               *
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,               *
                                         *
                  Third-Party Defendant, *
                                         *
and                                      *
                                         *
IDEMIA IDENTITY & SECURITY USA           *
LLC,                                     *
                                         *
                  Third-Party Defendant. *
                                         *
***************************************

                                           ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

         On 6 March 2017, plaintiff Michael Haddad filed a complaint against the government
alleging one count relating to “infringement of the ’844 Patent” by the Transportation Security
Administration (“TSA”). Compl. at 12, ECF No. 1 (cleaned up). On 30 April 2019, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity (“Mot. for Summ. J. on Invalidity”), ECF No.
63. In their motion, defendants argued “Claim 1 of the ’844 Patent does not disclose structure”
and is, therefore, “invalid as indefinite.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff responded on 20 May 2019, ECF
No. 66, and defendants replied on 6 June 2019, ECF No. 74. This case was reassigned to the
undersigned Judge on 29 July 2019. See Order, ECF No. 81. On 25 October 2019, the Court
stayed “consideration of all other motions until resolution of the government’s motion for
summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2514.” 25 Oct. 2019 Order at 1, ECF No. 92. On 21
January 2021, the Court issued an Opinion and Order resolving one of three pending summary
judgment motions (on the government’s counterclaim) but stayed the other two summary
judgment motions (on invalidity and non-infringement) pending claim construction. Op. &
Order at 1, 21, ECF No. 113. On 20 January 2023, the Court issued a Claim Construction
Opinion and Order finding “sole independent claim 1 indefinite and accordingly [held] the entire
’844 Patent invalid.” Cl. Constr. Order & Opinion at 1, ECF No. 154. The Court ordered
plaintiff to show cause “as to why this case should not be dismissed.” Id. On 23 February 2023,
plaintiff filed a memorandum stating, “Mr. Haddad states, through counsel, that he has no
objection to the Court’s order of Docket No. 154.” Mot. for Three Day Extension of Time and
Statement of Non-Objection at 1, ECF No. 155. Defendants responded requesting the Court
dismiss this case because “[p]laintiff’s statement raised no objection to the Court’s ruling, nor
has [p]laintiff shown why this case should not be dismissed.” Defs.’ Resp. to Plaintiff’s
Statement of Non-Objection at 2, ECF No. 156.

         RCFC 56(f)(3) states, “After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court
may: . . . consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts
that may not be genuinely in dispute.” See Cl. Constr. Op. & Order at 1. Although defendants’
motion for summary judgment on invalidity was filed almost four years ago, the Court agrees
with defendants’ arguments regarding the indefiniteness of Claim 1, and, pursuant to RCFC
56(f)(3), considers defendants’ motion for summary judgment on invalidity. In the Court’s
Claim Construction Opinion and Order, the Court found the “sole independent claim 1 indefinite
and accordingly found the entire ’844 Patent invalid.” Id. at 1. As other courts have concluded
in similar assertions, “because claim 1, the sole independent claim . . . is invalid, and because the
only . . . count of plaintiff’s . . . [c]omplaint is based on the [invalid patent], judgment must be
entered in favor of defendant in this action.” Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., No.
1:18-CV-760, 2019 WL 2745735 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2019), aff’d, 813 F. App’x 522 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (entering judgment in favor of defendant after finding the patent invalid). Further,
plaintiff in responding to the Court’s Claim Construction Opinion and Order did not argue the
case should continue. 1 Judgment, therefore, must be entered in favor of defendants in this
action. Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 902 (2014) (“A lack of definiteness
renders invalid ‘the patent of any claim in the suit.’”) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2)).

        Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
invalidity, ECF No. 63, and FINDS AS MOOT defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
non-infringement, ECF No. 88. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for
defendants and dismiss the case with prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

1
   On 23 February 2023, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Three-Day Extension of Time; Statement of Non-Objection,”
ECF No. 155. Plaintiff stated “he has no objection to the Court’s order of Docket No. 154,” the Court’s Claim
Construction Opinion and Order. Id. at 1. Plaintiff also asked for a three-day extension due to a discrepancy
between the CM/ECF system and the Claim Construction Opinion and Order. Id. In the time between plaintiff’s
filing and this Order, plaintiff has not made any additional filings. The Court, therefore, assumes plaintiff consents
to the dismissal of the case.

                                                         -2-
      s/ Ryan T. Holte
      RYAN T. HOLTE
      Judge

-3-