Shoffiett v. Goode ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 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    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
    2                                         SHOFFIETT   v. GOODE
    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
    4                                        SHOFFIETT   v. GOODE
    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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-1368

Filed Date: 9/1/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/1/2020