ISAACS
v.
GOOGLE LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a pro se plaintiff lacks standing to bring a patent infringement claim if they do not hold all substantial rights to the patent, and a pro se plaintiff cannot bring class action claims.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Isaacs, proceeding pro se, sued Google for patent infringement and antitrust violations. Isaacs did not hold all substantial rights …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Only a patentee with all substantial rights of a patent can bring an action for patent infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 281.
3.
At the time the patent in this case was reissued, the patentee was not Mr. Isaacs, it was Greenflight Venture Corporation. DE 1-2, 1-3.
4.
Mr. Isaacs did not allege in his Complaint that Greenflight assigned all substantial rights under the patent to him, and patent records indicate no assignment has ever occurred. DE 1-4. Instead, Mr. Isaacs alleged that he was merely a partial owner of Greenflight Venture. DE 1 at 11.
5.
Accordingly, due to a lack of standing, Mr. Isaacs's patent infringement claim must be dismissed. See Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1276-77 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
6.
In response to the foregoing Mr. Isaacs filed an amended complaint, however, the Amended Complaint does not moot out the legal arguments raised in the Motion
to Dismiss because the Amended Complaint contains the same problems as the original-Mr. Isaacs cannot sue for patent infringement, and his allegations on this point are essentially unchanged. See Gandy v. VT Mae, No. 18-00381, 2019 WL 4047614, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2019). As a result, Mr. Isaacs' claim for patent infringement in the Amended Complaint is dismissed.
7.
Mr. Isaacs, still acting pro se, purports to bring class action claims in the Amended Complaint in addition to his patent infringement claim, but a pro se plaintiff cannot bring class action claims under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. E.g., Young v. Scott, No. 16-CV-581, 2016 WL 4441581, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016).
8.
Mr. Isaacs' class action claims are therefore dismissed as unauthorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's ruling does not affect the class actions claims brought by the new Plaintiff in this action, Greenflight Venture Corporation, which is represented by counsel.
9.
Mr. Isaacs has brought one claim in his pro se capacity that is not a class action claim and is not a claim for patent infringement—a Sherman Act antitrust claim. Given that (i) the same claim is brought by Greenflight Venture, (ii) Mr. Isaacs alleges he owns and controls Greenflight Venture, and (iii) Mr. Isaacs has retained an attorney to represent Greenflight Venture's Sherman Act claim in this matter, the Court exercises its case management discretion¹ to SEVER and STAY Mr. Isaacs' pro se Sherman Act claim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Moorer, 372 F.2d 747 (5th Cir. 1967)
- Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2008)