Shoffiett v. Goode

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: September 1, 2020
• Docket: 20-1368
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 09/01/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MIKE D. SHOFFIETT, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JIM GOODE, SR., DALE GOODE, Defendants

MARY GOODE, BETTY GOODE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DALE GOODE, FIBERLENE LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2020-1368 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in No. 6:18-cv-01545-MJJ- CBW. ______________________

Decided: September 1, 2020 ______________________

MIKE D. SHOFFIETT, SR., Rayne, LA, pro se.

PAMELA HARPER, Minifield & Harper, Minden, LA, for defendant-appellee Betty Goode. Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 09/01/2020

APRIL L. ROLEN-OGDEN, Liskow & Lewis, PC, Lafa- yette, LA, for defendants-appellees Mary Goode, Fiberlene LLC. ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Mike Shoffiett, Sr., appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdic- tion and failure to state a claim. Because we agree that Mr. Shoffiett does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Shoffiett is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 4,904,288 (“the ’288 Patent”). The patent is directed to reusable air filter assemblies for use in heating and cooling systems. In 1994, Mr. Shoffiett allowed the ’288 Patent to expire for nonpayment of maintenance fees because, ac- cording to Mr. Shoffiett, he discovered a way to improve the claimed air filter system. Mr. Shoffiett did not obtain a pa- tent on the updated filter design, but sold filters embodying the improved design through his company, Fiberlene Fil- ters, Inc. (“Fiberlene”). In 2003, Mr. Shoffiett sold two-thirds of Fiberlene’s as- sets to Dale and Jim Goode through a Purchase Agreement (“2003 Purchase Agreement”). The parties then formed Fi- berlene Filters, LLC (“Fiberlene LLC”) to conduct the busi- ness. However, the business relationship between the parties soured when Jim Goode discovered that Mr. Shoffiett had allowed the ’288 Patent to expire before the execution of the 2003 Purchase Agreement. Jim Goode then ceased doing business with Mr. Shoffiett and applied for, and was granted, U.S. Patent. No. 8,062,403 (“the ’403 Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 09/01/2020

SHOFFIETT v. GOODE 3

Patent”) for “Filter Elements for Circulating Air Systems.” Mr. Shoffiett asserts that the ’403 Patent incorporated his improved filter design. Mr. Shoffiett brought suit against Dale Goode, Jim Goode, and Fiberlene LLC in Louisiana state court, alleg- ing patent infringement, patent fraud, trade secret misap- propriation, and breach of contract. Mike D. Shoffiett, Sr. et al. v. Fiberlene Filters, L.L.C. et al., No. 2014-10921-J, 15th J.D.C., Parish of Acadia, State of Louisiana. Mr. Shoffiett claimed that Jim and Dale Goode had vio- lated the terms of the 2003 Purchase Agreement by failing to make required payments and refusing to acknowledge Mr. Shoffiett’s partial ownership of the joint entity, and that Jim Goode had improperly incorporated Mr. Shoffiett’s trade secret filter design in the ’403 Patent. On October 22, 2018, the state court dismissed Mr. Shoffiett’s patent infringement claim without preju- dice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court sub- sequently granted Jim Goode and Fiberlene LLC’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining state-law claims against them. Mr. Shoffiett additionally settled and agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims against Dale Goode and his estate. During the pendency of the state court action, Mr. Shoffiett filed the present suit against Jim and Mary Goode and Dale and Betty Goode in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. When Mr. Shoffiett filed an amended complaint, however, he only listed “Jim Goode SR, Heirs & Assigns,” “Fiberlene LLC,” and “Betty Goode Wife/Executor of Dale Goode (Deceased)” as defend- ants. The amended complaint alleged “patent fraud,” trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and breach of contract claims. The complaint makes it clear the “pa- tent fraud” claim is encompassed in Mr. Shoffiett’s claim for trade secret misappropriation. Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 09/01/2020

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that Mr. Shoffiett had no enforceable pa- tent rights and therefore could not assert a patent infringe- ment claim and that his other claims were barred by res judicata because the Louisiana state court dismissed the claims against Fiberlene LLC and resolved the claims against Dale Goode and his estate. 1 Mr. Shoffiett appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSION We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Del-Ray Battery Co. v. Douglas Battery Co., 635 F.3d 725, 728 (5th Cir. 2011). While Mr. Shoffiett’s complaint is difficult to under- stand, it appears to assert a patent infringement claim. However, the ’288 Patent expired in 1994. When a patent expires, “the patentee’s prerogatives expire too, and the right to make or use the article, free from all restriction, passes to the public.” Kimble v. Marvel Ent., LLC, 576 U.S. 446, 451 (2015). Accordingly, the district court properly de- termined that Mr. Shoffiett had no enforceable patent rights and could not state a claim for patent infringement. Although the district court also found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Shoffiett’s patent claim, we

1 The district court also found that Mary Goode and Betty Goode were not properly named defendants because Mr. Shoffiett did not make any allegations against them in their individual capacities and because Mary Goode was not a named defendant in the amended complaint. The dis- trict court separately dismissed the action as to Jim Goode, Sr.’s estate for failure to prosecute under local rule 41.3. Mr. Shoffiett does not challenge these determinations on appeal. Case: 20-1368 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 09/01/2020

SHOFFIETT v. GOODE 5

find the dismissal is more properly for failure to state a claim. As the district court held, Mr. Shoffiett’s remaining claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Claim preclusion bars “successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001). The preclusive effect of a state- court judgment in a subsequent federal lawsuit is deter- mined by applying the preclusion law of the state that ren- dered the judgment. Enovsys LLC v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., 614 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Mr. Shoffiett’s patent fraud, trade secret misap- propriation, and breach of contract claims advanced against Dale Goode’s estate and Fiberlene LLC are the same claims advanced, and resolved, in the state court lit- igation. We therefore affirm the district court’s determina- tion that Mr. Shoffiett’s state-law claims are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. See Burguieres v. Pollingue, 843 So. 2d 1049, 1053 (La. 2003) (discussing when res judi- cata applies under Louisiana law). AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.